No. 20-7281

Michael J. Wright v. Mario Cardenas, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights failure-to-state-a-claim federal-rules-of-civil-procedure judicial-discretion motion-to-dismiss procedural-requirements rule-interpretation summary-judgment
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-04-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has entered a decision in conflict with relevant decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Has the 11th Circuit so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

The subject matter and issue is Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12 Defenses and Objections When and How Presented, Does the word"MUST" as used in Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (2) lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) improper venue; (4) insufficient process; (5) insufficient service of process; (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (7) failure to join a party under Rule 19. A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed."; Rule 8(b) (1) "(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must; (A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and (B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party."; and Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 201(c) (2) "(c) Taking Notice. The court: (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.: denote, signify and intend that there is no discretion on the part of the (trial) court? AND Must a defense of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" be made before pleading?

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. "Rule 1. Scope and Purpose-These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81. They should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding. Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937 3. These rules are drawn under the authority of the act of June 19, 1934, U.S.C., Title 28, $723b [see 2072] (Rules in actions at law; Supreme Court authorized to make), and §723c [see 2072] (Union of equity and action at law rules; power of Supreme Court) and also other grants of rulemaking power to the Court." By what authority does the District Court and the Appellate Court disregard and knowingly violate the Rules?

In consideration of the United States Constitution bill of rights Amendment 7 "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."; Wright has accused the six police officer defendants of committing crimes in an effort to cover up the cause of Wrights disfigured face and broken nose; all six of the defendants have employed the 5th Amendment Right to remain silent. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 (b) subsection "(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages-—is admitted if

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Proper-Procedure-for-Defenses-under-Rule-12

Docket Entries

2021-05-03
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
2021-04-01
Waiver of right of respondent Mario Cardenas, et al. to respond filed.
2021-01-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 31, 2021)

Attorneys

Mario Cardenas, et al.
Ian ForsytheHilyard, Bogan & Palmer, Respondent
Michael J. Wright
Michael J. Wright — Petitioner