pro-per
4 cases — ← All topics
| Case | Title | Lower Court | Docketed | Status | Flags | Tags | Question Presented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25-5366 | Jane Doe v. Jack Dwosh | California | 2025-08-14 | Denied | IFP | due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines fourteenth-amendment indigent-party pro-per | The Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, which protects against excessive punitive economic sanctions, is fundamental to the scheme of ordered l… |
| 23A940 | Norma Ortiz Fernandez v. La Clinica | California | 2024-04-19 | Presumed Complete | appellate-review due-process legal-extension miscarriage-of-justice petition-for-review pro-per | Question not identified. | |
| 21-7631 | Johnell Lee Carter v. Hunter Anglea, Warden | Ninth Circuit | 2022-04-15 | Denied | Response WaivedIFP | constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process pro-per pro-per-status right-to-counsel self-representation sixth-amendment trial-court-discretion | Whether the trial court denied Petitioner's right to self representation by concluding Mr. Carter's opting for pro per status was made too close to th… |
| 19-6458 | Torrence E. Davis v. Arizona | Arizona | 2019-10-31 | Denied | Response WaivedIFP | conditional-demand constitutional-rights criminal-procedure equivocal-invocation equivocal-request faretta-right faretta-v-california judicial-discretion new-counsel pro-per right-to-counsel self-representation self-representation-right trial-court-advisement waiver-of-counsel | In Faretta v. California, this Court held that criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves in criminal prosecutions. Faretta v. Califor… |