No. 22-6817
Carline Curry v. City of Mansfield, Ohio, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights civil-rights-violation due-process employment-discrimination jury-trial jury-trial-denial retaliation statutory-interpretation summary-judgment
Latest Conference:
2023-03-31
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Why wasn't plaintiff Curry given an opportunity to become a plant Operator?
2. Defendants submitted a bad faith affidavit under Perjury, Fraud, and Subornation of perjury / obstruction of justice. Plaintiff Curry should have been granted Summary Judgement under Federal Rule 56 (h). Entry Judgment not according to law.
3. Why wasn't Preponderance / Circumstantial evidence granted
4. The Court fee was paid and I was denied the right to a Jury Trial in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Why wasn't plaintiff Curry given an opportunity to become a plant Operator?
Docket Entries
2023-04-03
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/31/2023.
2023-03-07
Waiver of right of respondent City of Mansfield, Ohio, et al. to respond filed.
2023-02-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Carline Curry
Carline M. Curry — Petitioner
City of Mansfield, Ohio, et al.
Andrea K. Ziarko — Baker, Bublikar, Beck, Wiley & Mathews, Respondent