No. 22-6888

Samantha D. Rajapakse v. Seyfarth Shaw, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2023-02-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-rights credit-reporting credit-reporting-agency due-process fair-credit-reporting-act first-amendment fourteenth-amendment pro-se-litigation standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2023-04-28
Question Presented (from Petition)

Question#1: Can a law firm retained by any credit reporting agency carry out the duties of and services of credit reporting agency business?

Question#2: Can a law firm retained by a credit reporting agency deny services of that as a credit reporting agency to any individual without notifying said individual?

Question#3: Can a law firm retained by a credit reporting agency make changes to an individual credit reporting history as a punitive measure to force a settlement of a dispute?

Question#4: Does the First Amendment of the Constitution of the right to file a greviance to be used in a civil case as a defense?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a law firm retained by a credit reporting agency carry out the duties of and services of credit reporting agency business?

Docket Entries

2023-05-01
Petition DENIED.
2023-04-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/28/2023.
2022-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 30, 2023)
2022-11-02
Application (22A375) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until January 30, 2023.
2022-10-29
Application (22A375) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 29, 2022 to January 28, 2023, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.

Attorneys

Samantha D. Rajapakse
Samantha Rajapakse — Petitioner