No. 18-7542

Pamela Suzanne Harnden v. St. Clair County, Michigan, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-01-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-law criminal-law due-process implied-private-right implied-private-right-of-action kidnapping statute-of-limitations tolling
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2019-05-09 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Do the 5th and 14th Amendments justify the tolling of a civil action during the course of a criminal action?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Do the 5 and 14t Amendments justify the tolling of a civil action during the course of a criminal action? 2. As kidnapping does not have a federal statute for a private right to civil action despite there being a federal criminal statute and since the criminal statute confers a right to a private citizen and not a specific group, does this give rise to the creation of an implied private right to action? 3. If the answer to Question 2 is yes, then does the statute of limitations applied to the criminal action transfer to the implied civil action? i

Docket Entries

2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-12
Petitioner complied with order of March 25, 2019.
2019-04-02
Waiver of right of respondents St. Clair County, Michigan, et al. to respond filed.
2019-03-25
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 15, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2019-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2019.
2019-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 25, 2019)

Attorneys

Pamela Suzanne Harnden
Pamela Suzanne Harnden — Petitioner
St. Clair County, Michigan, et al.
Todd J. ShoudyFletcher Fealko Shoudy & Francis, P.C., Respondent