No. 18-8444

Primo C. Novero v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-courts administrative-jurisdiction civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-claims document-delivery due-process equal-access equal-protection right-to-jury-trial right-to-petition rules-of-court standing trial-by-jury
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2019-05-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the district court erred and had conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.2, and U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 due process in defining 'timely delivery' of a document in the district court's office?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. . Does the district court erred and had conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court ' Rule 29.2, and U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 due proces in defining “timely delivery” of a document in the district court’s office?. . . B. Does the district court erred in dismissing the constitutional claims of the Plaintiff by not noticing the direct relationship of Defendants and U.S. Government (NRC) by contract , thus violating the Plaintiffs due process _. , right, right to petition, and right for constitutional claims before the jury in accordance with the U.S. Constitution Amendment 1 & 14? ; C. Does the district court's decision in dismissing the case of Plaintiff in conflict ; , with the U.S, Constitution Amendment 7 “trial by jury” under the rules of the common law,” and the US. Constitution Amendment 1 right to petition when . the inferior court acted under their legislative and administrative jurisdiction, ‘authority and rules? D, Does the district court’s punishment of “case dismissal” balanced with ; “untimely delivery” offence according to the U.S. Constitution Amendment 8? E. Does the district court erred by for not providing the Plaintiff with equal access to the court’s Electronic Filing System (CM/ECF), and thus violated the Plaintiffs due process and equality rights in accordance with the U.S. Constitution Amendment 14? ; Page ii é, ' LISTOF PARTIES , All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page: Pro Se Petitioner: : : Primo C. Novero oa . . 3 Bunker Hill Lane : Russellville, AR 72802 : ; Tel. No. 501.749.2101 no . Email: oe mo, Respondents: : ' eS —_ Duke Energy: Carol Field, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300, Miami, FL 33131-2339-. : h : , Tel. 305.415.3369 . : a, . . of Email: see a URS Energy and Construction Inc.: Nancy Johnson, Littler Mendelson, P.C., 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250, Orlando, FL 32801, : ° Tel. 407.393.2925 . 7 Email: me CDI Corporation: W. Russell Hamilton, III, 1901 S. Harbor City Boulevard, Suite 501, Melbourne, FL 32901, Tel. 305.2062499 . : Email: : Page iii . : } 6 _

Docket Entries

2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-16
Waiver of right of respondents URS Energy and Construction, INc. to respond filed.
2019-04-16
Waiver of right of respondent Duke Energy Florida, LLC to respond filed.
2019-04-15
Waiver of right of respondent CDI Corporation to respond filed.
2018-12-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 18, 2019)

Attorneys

CDI Corporation
Mary Susan SaccoFordHarrison LLP, Respondent
Mary Susan SaccoFordHarrison LLP, Respondent
Duke Energy Florida, LLC
David B. SalmonsMorgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Respondent
David B. SalmonsMorgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Respondent
Primo C. Novero
Primo C. Novero — Petitioner
Primo C. Novero — Petitioner
URS Energy and Construction, INc.
Nancy A. JohnsonLITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Respondent
Nancy A. JohnsonLITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Respondent