No. 18-7501
GwanJun Kim v. Grand Valley State University, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure complaint dismissal due-process evidence factual-findings jurisdiction marshal service-of-process standing summons time-limits
Key Terms:
Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to serve the defendants within the time period required by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has a jurisdiction QUESTION defraud I The judge and panel “erroneous factual findings”! Kim J, that On March 28, 2011 the U.S. Marshal Christine Elmy (b)(7)(C)was not mailed the complaint and the USM Form -299 Receipt of Summons and Complaint to defendants until present*which is “[ on March. 28, 2011 ]there is no evidence that defendants were . . . served” (Order, Kim I P.2, ECF No 48 and
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
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).
2019-01-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-29
Waiver of right of respondents Gand Valley State University, et al. to respond filed.
2019-01-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 21, 2019)
Attorneys
Gand Valley State University, et al.
Conor Brendan Dugan — Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Respondent
Conor Brendan Dugan — Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Respondent