No. 22-7372
Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas Bey, III v. United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
IFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-interpretation due-process evidence-suppression evidentiary-hearing federal-jurisdiction habeas-corpus judicial-review liberty-remedy removal-proceedings state-court-proceedings
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference:
2023-06-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question not identified.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When Article I, Section 9 of the North Carolina Constitution states that 'every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the restraint if unlawful, and that such remedy shall not be denied or delayed where habeas corpus would lie,' does the federal court need to have a special evidentiary hearing before the state court with the same issues?
Docket Entries
2023-06-26
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).
2023-06-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
2023-04-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 26, 2023)
Attorneys
Alphonza Thomas-Bey
Alphonza Leonard Phillip Thomas Bey III — Petitioner