No. 23-7392

Elaine Mickman v. Philadelphia Professional Collections, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2024-05-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-court-summary-action circuit-courts civil-procedure continuing-tolling discretionary-appeal due-process equitable-tolling federal-appeal-process summary-action
Latest Conference: 2024-06-13
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Does Circuit Court Summary Action undermine and effectively convert the right to appeal a US District Court Order into a discretionary appeal, thereby depriving due process and eroding the federal appeal process compounded by non-uniform and varying rules among the Circuit Courts?

2. Shouldn't "Continuing Tolling" and the "Equitable Tolling Principles" be recognized and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court to uniformly resolve the "left-open" time extension arbitrarily decided by the Courts?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does Circuit Court Summary Action undermine and effectively convert the right to appeal a US District Court Order into a discretionary appeal, thereby depriving due process and eroding the federal appeal process compounded by non-uniform and varying rules among the Circuit Courts?

Docket Entries

2024-09-06
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-08-15
DISTRIBUTED.
2024-07-11
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-06-17
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
2024-05-15
Waiver of right of respondent Philadelphia Professional Collections, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
2024-05-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 6, 2024)
2024-03-06
Application (23A807) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until May 3, 2024.
2024-02-12
Application (23A807) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 4, 2024 to May 3, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Elaine Mickman
Elaine Mickman — Petitioner
Philadelphia Professional Collections, LLC, et al.
David J. CreaganWhite and Williams, LLP, Respondent