Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division unconstitutionally err in labeling petitioner vexatious-frivolous, without one hearing on the merits.
Would petitioner have been granted one hearing on the merits, if petitioner could have afforded an attorney of record v. in forma pauper.
Is denying due process solely because of one's economic/social class specifically explained/expressed in the Constitution of the United States.
Is obvious bias of the poor/in forma pauper a flaw of fallacy that requires correction to ensure the rule of law is duly protected for all (beyond economic/social class).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the United States District Court unconstitutionally denied due process to a petitioner based on economic/social class and lack of legal representation
2025-11-17
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).
2025-10-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/14/2025.
2025-07-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 16, 2025)
2025-03-26
Application (24A906) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 17, 2025.
2025-03-15
Application (24A906) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 18, 2025 to July 17, 2025, submitted to Justice Alito.