No. 23-7377
Christopher J. Barnett v. Oklahoma
IFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion civil-procedure constitutional-rights due-process judicial-bias judicial-discretion legal-procedure local-court procedural-fairness recusal standing
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)
/lWi r BiQScJ CheHe^eJ Sud§e defuse
-h Hecvsc
PfidVopj C CL Q^eSbi^y Pj$
Aa/c5 (^UPeoV AntrWJS pt V f i o hjefS
fe C uSfiL pf!u6fyu3
Oibbfti/iQ /}/vd- JvJyt
Dr iufh( PoJy Ae/^y p& y( Plover Due process
U/ic)vr Ok) ft komeS/V
Rule IS pNce^ue/Ke Sr
~h Sivy proceeJihjV UN^i /he-r^sf^Si\iuy
VoKecusc Oe r e i&VhnuSie<S ,
O tb J uJjC Df)vif) SuheA/
dS> )n oorSi/vui^(j
A> He oust hxhfi&t'se. e>S O'iScre-H'oAJ
■h 7 Ojl-ih /) /KtfvJwoj
Piled irJ ~fy t-OC6/J £
Question Presented (AI Summary)
whether-a-biased-judge-must-recuse-themselves
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-03-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 3, 2024)
Attorneys
Christopher J. Barnett
Christopher J. Barnett — Petitioner