No. 21-7286
Andrew J. Johnston v. Frances Ward, et al.
IFP
Tags: bivens-action civil-procedure civil-rights due-process judicial-misconduct recusal-request standing transcript trial-transcript witness-testimony
Latest Conference:
2022-05-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
Does a claim#*ttw^if pourt reporter and district judge brought under the Bivens Act alleging precise material omissions
from the transcript of a federal criminal trial in violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause qualify as Heck barred
and/or a new Bivens context?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the petitioner's due process rights were violated by the omission of material testimony from the trial transcript
Docket Entries
2022-05-16
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. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2022-04-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2021-12-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 6, 2022)
Attorneys
Andrew Johnston
Andrew James Johnston — Petitioner