No. 21-6022
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: access-to-courts bureau-of-prisons civil-procedure deliberate-indifference due-process eighth-amendment frivolous plausible-claim rule-8 standing
Latest Conference:
2022-02-25
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the Court Error in ruling that "the complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)?
2. Did the Court Error in ruling that the complaint was frivolous?
3. Did the Court Error in ruling that the case did not state a claim that is plausible on its face"?
4. Did the Court violate Petitioner's Eighth Amendment rights to access to the courts"?
5. Was the BOP's Central Inmate Monitoring Program a failure in protecting Hedrick from assaults from inside and outside of the BOP?
6. Were BOP Officers, medical staff and employee's "deliberately indifferent to Hedrick's health and safety at FCI Fort Dix?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Court Error in ruling that the complaint failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)?
Docket Entries
2022-02-28
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2022-02-09
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/25/2022.
2022-01-28
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2022-01-10
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2021-12-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-09-23
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 22, 2021)
Attorneys
In Re Robert L. Hedrick
Robert L. Hedrick — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent