No. 25-994

Beverly Hennager v. Mary E. Deardon, as Personal Representative of the Estate of M.K. Jennings

Lower Court: South Carolina
Docketed: 2026-02-19
Status: Pending
Type: Paid
Tags: access-to-courts appellate-review due-process-clause equal-protection judicial-misconduct pro-se-litigation
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due
Process Clause requires enforceable constitutional
safeguards in state judicial systems where (1) judges
both decide cases and oversee discipline for judicial
misconduct, and (2) lawyer-legislators who appoint
judges and determine their longevity on the bench
also regularly appear before those judges, creating the
appearance of structural incentives for judges to favor
those legislators while avoiding penalties for misconduct in a system with no external oversight.

2. Whether a State violates the Fourteenth
Amendment's guarantees of due process, equal protection, and meaningful access to the courts when its appellate courts (1) affirm a judgment that is not supported by any existing order in the record, which is
therefore void, and then (2) foreclose any review of
due-process and fraud-on-the-court claims by holding
that the sole avenue of relief lies in Rule 60(b)(4) motions that lower courts subsequently refuse to accept
or adjudicate, thereby creating a procedural dead end
for those federal claims.

3. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of due process and meaningful access to the
courts are violated when state courts prevent a pro se
litigant from obtaining plainly relevant evidence, decide a dispositive issue on an incomplete record, and
then change the critical finding of fact on appeal without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires enforceable constitutional safeguards in state judicial systems where judges both decide cases and oversee discipline for judicial misconduct, and whether a State violates due process and equal protection guarantees when its appellate courts affirm judgments unsupported by the record and foreclose review of federal claims through procedural barriers, and whether due process and meaningful access to courts are violated when state courts prevent pro se litigants from obtaining relevant evidence and change critical factual findings on appeal without notice or opportunity to be heard

Docket Entries

2026-02-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 23, 2026)

Attorneys

Beverly Hennager
Beverly Hennager — Petitioner