No. 23-5175

In Re Gregory Albert Darst

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2023-07-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-procedure administrative-procedures appellate-dismissal civil-procedure docket-manipulation judicial-immunity mandamus procedural-due-process recusal standing
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw
Latest Conference: 2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)

I. Did Clerk Smith or staff attorney dismiss appeal 22-10918 without involvement of judicial officers?

II. Did the Circuit / Clerk Smith impermissibly represent the Defendants in appeal 22-10918, (since no Defendant or counsel appeared)?

III. Did the Circuit / Clerk Smith's refusal to adjudicate the two core issues raised on appeal in 22-10918 justify invoking this Court's supervisory jurisdiction and issuance of mandamus?

1. Does judicial immunity apply to the act of a federal judge who fabricates the existence of "internal administrative procedures" to justify the administrative manipulation of her docket with another judge, when both attorneys know no such procedures exist?

2. After my civil suit against Ms. Scriven, et al (8:21-cv-2840-WFJ-JSS), was assigned to Mr. Jung's docket, should he have sua sponte recused in light of his extra-judicial agreement with her to administratively manipulate their dockets, to enable him to author the dismissal of my coram nobis motion?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did Clerk Smith or staff attorney dismiss appeal 22-10918 without involvement of judicial officers?

Docket Entries

2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-07-18
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 21, 2023)

Attorneys

Darst, In Re Gregory
Gregory Albert Darst — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent