No. 18-8157
James Arthur Brinson v. Mark S. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
IFP
Tags: access-to-courts civil-rights constitutional-rights court-access due-process federal-courts federal-jurisdiction final-decision fraud fraud-on-court judicial-procedure state-court timeliness untimeliness
Key Terms:
Securities Immigration LaborRelations
Securities Immigration LaborRelations
Latest Conference:
2019-04-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a constitutional right of access to the courts being denied when a fraud on a state court decision is used to prove untimeliness when federal courts do not identify a fraud on the court as a final decision?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS ' BEING DENIED WHEN A FRAUD ON A STATE COURT DECISION IS _ USED TO PROVE UNTIMELINESS WHEN FEDERAL COURTS DO NOT | IDENTIFY A FRAUD ON THE COURT AS A FINAL DECISION?’ i
Docket Entries
2019-04-29
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2018-11-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 29, 2019)