No. 18-5922

Robert Joseph Sarhan v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law civil-procedure fraud-on-the-court res-judicata violated-supreme-court-precedent administrative-law civil-procedure due-process fourteenth-amendment fraud-on-court fraud-on-the-court manifest-injustice res-judicata void-judgment
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2018-10-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts acted inconsistently with due process and Supreme Court precedent in affirming the petitioner's fraud on the court claims without review

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Writ of Certiorari is of Great National Importance. After 11 years of fighting for Justice, numerous Judges continue to deprive the Petitioner of his Liberty and Property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Rights of Due Process and turn a blind eye to Fraud on the Court. Under Rule 10, this Petitioner Prays for an Exercise of this Supreme Courts Supervisory Power and seeks review of a Manifest Injustice that is fundamental to the integrity of Administrative and Civil proceedings in the United States, where we Respectfully Request and Pray for “JUSTICE.” 1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and other Courts involved acted in a manner inconsistent with due process and violated the U.S. Supreme Court Law and precedent governing review of fraud on the court actions by summarily affirming the Petitioner's Federal District Court actions for relief from judgment procured by fraud on the courtall without ever reviewing Petitioner's fraud on the court allegations, the very subject matter of his action, and the very allegations, proven with prima facie evidence, that entitle him to relief ? 2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision is contrary to their own opinion and the United States Supreme Court Precedents and states: a judgment is a “void judgment” if the court that rendered judgment... acted in a manner inconsistent with due process?” 3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in there ruling of res judicata, differs from the Six Circuit, where collateral estoppel nor res judicata is not rigidly applied in administrative actions; both rules are qualified or rejected when their application would contravene overriding public policy or result in ‘ Manifest Injustice.. Whether res judicata is blocking the truth" and is shielding the fraud and the cheat as well as the honest person? i

Docket Entries

2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-09-20
Waiver of right of respondent Federal Bureau of Prisons to respond filed.
2018-06-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 10, 2018)

Attorneys

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Robert Joseph Sarhan
Robert Joseph Sarhan — Petitioner
Robert Joseph Sarhan — Petitioner