No. 18-5836

Ya'shua Amen Shekhem El-Bey v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2018-08-30
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure district-court due-process federal-rules-of-civil-procedure fraud fraud-on-court fraud-on-the-court minute-order rule-60 rule-60-motion service-of-process standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2018-10-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the district court denied Petitioner's rights to due process of law

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether the district court denied Petitioner’s rights to due process of law when it failed to serve it’s “Minute Order” upon the Petitioner and failing to assign a civil docket entry number to it, yet was used to dismiss Petitioner’s Motion filed under Rule 60 (b)(3), (4), (6) and (d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for fraud on the court against the memorandum opinion and Order of U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell. : 2. Whether the district court abused its discretion when it failed to serve it’s “Minute Order” upon the Petitioner and failing to assign a civil docket entry number to it, yet was used to dismiss Petitioner’s Motion under Rule 60 (b)(3), (4), (6) and (d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for fraud on the court against the memorandum opinion and Order of U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell. ; 3. Whether the district court’s action as described above violates the fundamental principle of due process in which the U.S. Supreme Court is in place to uphold and protect.

Docket Entries

2018-10-29
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). Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2018-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-10-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2018-08-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 1, 2018)

Attorneys

United States, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Yashua Shekhem El-Bey
Yashua Amen Shekhem'El-Bey — Petitioner
Yashua Amen Shekhem'El-Bey — Petitioner