No. 20-6546

John C. Nimmer v. Michael G. Heavican, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Nebraska, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: attorney-discipline civil-rights constitutional-challenge due-process fourteenth-amendment privileges-and-immunities rooker-feldman separation-of-powers standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-03-26 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

The questions presented are

1. Does Rooker-Feldman* doctrine bar Petitioner's 42 USC 1983 US District Court claim where Petitioner pled a facial as opposed to an as applied challenge?

*Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.. 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Anneals v. Feldman. 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

2. If Rooker-Feldman is inapplicable because Petitioner pled a facial as opposed to as applied challenge, did Petitioner have standing to bring his 42 USC 1983 US District Court claim?

3. If Petitioner inadvertently pled in the US District Court a 42 USC 1983 as applied challenge, were the state court proceedings "concluded " to bar Petitioner's claim under Rooker-Feldman?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bar a 42 USC 1983 claim when a facial challenge is pled?

Docket Entries

2021-03-29
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-03-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.
2021-02-26
Petition for Rehearing filed.
Main DocumentProof of Service
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2020-12-11
Waiver of right of respondent Michael G. Heavican to respond filed.
Main Document
2020-08-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 6, 2021)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendix

Attorneys

John C. Nimmer
John C. Nimmer — Petitioner
Michael G. Heavican
James D. Smith — Nebraska Department of Justice, Respondent