No. 22-657
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-133 28-usc-44 5th-amendment article-iii constitutional-jurisdiction due-process judicial-distribution judicial-referral magistrates-act
Latest Conference:
2023-03-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
In context of the refusal of Congress to create additional Article III Judgeships:
1. Does the distribution of Article III judgeships pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§44 (circuit judges) &133 (district judges) satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and/or Article III?
2. Should the Magistrates Act be invalidated due to a false presumption of "total control " of the referral process?
3. Should the judgments in these related cases be set aside due to: a) an unlawful exercise of jurisdiction; b) denial of due process; or, c) in the interests of justice?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the distribution of Article III judgeships satisfy the Due Process Clause and/or Article III?
Docket Entries
2023-03-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-02-15
Waiver of right of respondents County of San Joaquin, et al. to respond filed.
2023-01-06
Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due February 16, 2023)
Attorneys
County of San Joaquin
Derek Paul Cole — Cole Huber LLP, Respondent
County of San Joaquin, et al.
Derek P. Cole — Cota Cole & Huber LLP, Respondent
Roger Towers, et al.
Roger David Towers — Petitioner