No. 20-8163

David Patkins v. Rebecca Piantini

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2021-05-27
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: access-to-courts civil-rights constitutional-law constitutional-rights discretionary-review due-process indigent-litigants judicial-access meaningful-access non-article-iii-proceedings prisoner-rights
Key Terms:
Arbitration
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)

PURSUANT FEOERAL (AND STATE) CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS/PETITION
CHL OLSNIN JO 8 3HE NO S3NE
COURTS :
(1)
ON NON-FRIVOLOUS ACTIONS, D.OES THE RIGHT OF MEANINGFUL
ACCESS TO THE COURTS AUTHORIZE CERTAIN COURTS TO
DISREGARD INDIGENT PARTY REQUESTS FOR AVAILABLE
COURT RESOURCES WHERE THAT DISREGARD 1S IN CONFLICT
WITH EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ESTABLISHING THAT
COURTS ARE TO APPLY DISCRETIONARY REVIEW NOT ONLY
TO REQUESTS FOR COURT RESOURCES BUT TO SATISFY THE
REQUIREMENT ON THE PUESTION /RIGHT TO MEANINGFUL
ACCESS; OR
(Z) IS THE RIGHT OF MEANINGFUL ACCESS SATISFIED AT THE
LIMITING OF NON-FRIVOLOUS PAPERS BEING FILED : AND/OR
(3) IS THE RIGHT BF MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO AVAILABLE COURT
OL LON QNV HLTVIN 3HL L S STOOL/S30MMO3
THE INDIUENT ANO/OR IMPRISONED.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the right of meaningful access to the courts authorizes certain courts to disregard indigent party requests for available court resources where that disregard is in conflict with existing constitutional law

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2021-07-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 28, 2021)

Attorneys

David Patkins
David C. Patkins — Petitioner