No. 23-6719

In Re Anthony Michael DelaRosa

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-02-09
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process federal-jurisdiction habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-misconduct judicial-review legal-procedure
Latest Conference: 2024-04-12
Question Presented (from Petition)

Whether such civil court can exercise, and should the omitted jurisdiction in violation of the Petitioner, by this Rule 11(a) violation of the United States Constitution in the County, Court of Oregon, County Court, leading to the Appellate level, and to the Civil District Court, Court of all United States of America Faculties of the United States Constitution on Federal Judicial Handbook Competence and Federal Rule a case of his Constitutional K in the Federal interest in his, if using previous 41

a General Court of the United States of the Petitioner?

And Or just what effect if such I U. wdJt U|Pw\fct, d CAft oAwvts c^Hk/v.HVj Hu (2-

^jr Gait, Wm7 I- $w\Mkj UM Huk Hvtty-s Hua41 W Hsr Hu, WWo ..T.C .0, )

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the state court proceedings, including issues of due process, ineffective assistance of counsel, and judicial misconduct

Docket Entries

2024-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2024-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
2023-12-28
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 11, 2024)

Attorneys

DelaRosa, In Re Anthony M.
Anthony Michael DelaRosa — Petitioner