No. 22-6213
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeals case-assignment civil-procedure due-process judicial-procedure procedural-error right-to-counsel rights-to-counsel sixth-circuit standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-01-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ("Sixth Circuit" ) err by
denying Mark Stinson ("Mr. Stinson" ) due process proceeding in the Six
Circuit Court of Appeals by not assigning a panel to his case and severely
harming the interest of Mr. Stinson and justice?
2. Did the Sixth Circuit err by violating 6 Cir. 12(c)(3) the rights to counsel?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err by denying Mark Stinson due process and violating his right to counsel?
Docket Entries
2023-01-09
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.
2022-12-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
2022-12-06
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-11-14
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2023)
Attorneys
Mark Stinson
Mark Stinson — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent