No. 18-5358
Brigitte Reynolds v. Anthony Stewart, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-court access-to-courts civil-procedure civil-rights district-court-dismissal due-process equal-protection judicial-discretion pro-se-plaintiff procedural-prejudice retaliation sixth-circuit-review standing summary-judgment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus
SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court improperly decided disputed factual issues and dismissed the case with prejudice, and whether the Sixth Circuit Court improperly agreed with the district court
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. DID THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DECIDE DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND DID THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT IMPROPERLY AGREE WITH THE DISTRICT COURT? 2. WAS PLAINTIFE’S ACCESS.TO THE COURT EFFECTIVELY IMPEDED WHEN DEFENDANT’S REFUSED TO LET HER REVIEW THE CD TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE ALPENA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT SUFFERING PLAINTIFF ACTUAL INJURY? 3. WAS PLAINTIFF TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN PRISONERS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL?
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-23
Waiver of right of respondents Anthony Stewart, Erika Reeves, Karri Osterhout, Steven Halliwill, and Linda Tackett to respond filed.
2018-06-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 27, 2018)
Attorneys
Anthony Stewart, Erika Reeves, Karri Osterhout, Steven Halliwill, and Linda Tackett
Aaron David Lindstrom — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent
Aaron David Lindstrom — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent