No. 22-5008
Anthony A. Patel v. Sonya Bhatia
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure court-authority due-process judicial-authority judicial-discretion martial-law settlement settlement-agreement sua-sponte-sanctions vexatious-litigant
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
May courts impose sua sponte punishments against litigants in cases which were already settled as a matter of law?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether courts can impose sua sponte punishments against litigants in cases already settled
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
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).
2022-07-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-14
Waiver of right of respondent Sonya Bhatia to respond filed.
2022-06-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 1, 2022)
Attorneys
Anthony A. Patel
Anthony A. Patel — Petitioner
Sonya Bhatia
Jeremy Osher — Boren, Osher & Luftman, LLP, Respondent