No. 20-1805

Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-06-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-procedure civil-rights district-court due-process federal-civil-rights ninth-circuit standing summary-judgment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)

Are the United States District Courts routinely
deciding disputed facts in favor of the defending
state court actor 's motion for summary judgment
under a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint in order to de
ny United States citizens basic due process rights?

Are these summary judgments consistently being
upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Are the United States District Courts routinely deciding disputed facts in favor of the defending state court actor's motion for summary judgment under a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint in order to deny United States citizens basic due process rights?

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
Main Document
2021-07-22
Waiver of right of respondents Chicago Tile Company and Jeanie O'Connor to respond filed.
Main Document
2021-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 26, 2021)
Certificate of Word CountPetitionProof of ServiceAppendix

Attorneys

Chicago Tile Company and Jeanie O'Connor
Josette Darlene Johnson — Fidelity National Law Group, The Law Div. of Fidelity Nat'l Title Co., Respondent
United States, et al.
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga
Wylmina Hettinga — Petitioner