No. 18-5856

David Gerard Jeep v. United States

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-04
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 14th-amendment civil-procedure civil-rights district-court due-process eighth-circuit judicial-act judicial-immunity probable-cause qualified-immunity rico-act standing xiv-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess CriminalProcedure Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2018-12-07 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the issuance, and support on appeal, of a court order without a 'reasonable probable cause' a judicial act?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Is the issuance, and support on appeal, of a court order without a “reasonable probable cause” a judicial act? 2) Is there a non-exigent exception to the XIV Amendment? 3) Is the 15 years struggle as described by the scandalous and criminal acts in this petition probable cause for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)? i Contents IL. INTRODUCTION (Orders and Dates).ss000 1 V. REASONS FOR GRANTING’ THE Il. INTRODUCTION (ORDERS AND DATES) This petition started in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri St. Louis (4: 17-cv02690-AGF!) and The Eighth Circuit (17-3681). The final order from Eastern District of Missouri St. Louis was issued Thursday, November 09, 2017. The : final order from The Eighth Circuit was issued Wednesday, May 30, 2018, their mandate was issued Wednesday, July 25, 2018 (see

Docket Entries

2018-12-10
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2018-11-20
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-07
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
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).
2018-10-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
2018-10-04
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-08-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 4, 2018)

Attorneys

David Jeep
David Gerard Jeep — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent