No. 20-5374

In Re Amro Elansari

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2020-08-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: cannabis-prohibition class-of-one constitutional-challenge due-process equal-protection judicial-review mandamus-writ medicinal-value substantive-due-process
Latest Conference: 2020-10-09
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Does the failure of the Third Circuit - and other courts - to consider the Plaintiffs substantive due process claims applied to the prohibition of cannabis - constitute a violation of the Plaintiffs due process rights.

(Suggested Answer: Yes - the Plaintiff - a law student - who intentionally had themselves caught with a bit of marijuana so they could challenge the constitutionality of the prohibition of cannabis under the theory of substantive due process - has instead * had the federal judges - issues opinions about 'class of one ' and 'equal protection ' theory - but not 'substantive due process '. If they would - Petitioner would win - but instead - they mis - represent and miscategorize the arguments of the Petitioner - pick a few of the weaker points they can find - and represent this to be the totality of the Plaintiffs arguments)

Petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Third Circuit to decide on the merits of the Plaintiffs claim • Substantive Due Process Applied To Cannabis Prohibition
o As it impacts minorities unequally
o As the representation of it as with no medicinal value is false - and made with such a reckless degree of falsity given current knowledge that the representation of such is tantamount to fraud which is a due process violation in and of itself
o The medicinal necessity and use of the cannabis that has been widely recognized and accepted since the past.

Instead of
• Class of one theory
• Equal protection theory
• Whatever other theory considered that is not the above pled claim.

And ther it makes it look as if the Petitioner is the one who doesn 't know the law..

The complaints of courts have spent as much as 5 years circling around this central argument of the Plaintiff instead of answering it directly - to which the Plaintiff files the instant petition for writ of mandamus. Surely this is an injustice.

(2) Does the Third Circuit Opinion dated 7/31/2020 in case 19-1106 - in any way- answer the Petitioner 's substantive due process claims in their Supplemental Brief?

(Factual Answer: Absolutely Not.)

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the failure of the Third Circuit and other courts to consider the Plaintiff's substantive due process claims applied to the prohibition of cannabis constitute a violation of the Plaintiff's due process rights?

Docket Entries

2020-10-13
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-03
Waiver of right of respondent Columbia County District Attorney's Office to respond filed.
2020-09-02
Waiver of right of respondent Centre County District Attorney's Office to respond filed.
2020-09-01
Waiver of right of respondent State College Police Department to respond filed.
2020-09-01
Waiver of right of respondent Penn State Dickinson School of Law to respond filed.
2020-08-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-08-03
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Amro Elansari
Amro Elansari — Petitioner
Centre County District Attorney's Office
Bernard Flynn CantornaCentre County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Columbia County District Attorney's Office
David Lee SchwalmThomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, Respondent
Penn State Dickinson School of Law
Chena L. Glenn-HartMcQualde Blasko, Inc., Respondent
State College Police Department
David S. Gaines Jr.Miller, Kisler & Campbell, Respondent
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent