No. 18-9750

John G. Curry v. Mark Joseph Lopez, Associate Judge, Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County, et al.

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2019-06-20
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (3)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights civil-rights-act civil-rights-violations constitutional-deprivation due-process federal-forum federal-jurisdiction judicial-immunity mandamus mandamus-relief rooker-feldman-doctrine standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess Securities Privacy
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether John G. Curry or someone similarly situated can be denied a federal forum, contrary to standards, by misapplication of doctrines, such as Rooker-Feldman or absolute judicial immunity

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Introductory Statement: John G. Curry is a natural born U.S. citizen and Illinois citizen, who has plausible claims that a criminal conspiracy of four people, including two Illinois associate judges, an Illinois attorney, and a non-attorney resident of Illinois, intentionally caused civil and criminal deprivations of his civil rights under the 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, under US laws, including 15 USC 1673, a prohibitive Act of Congress aimed at all judges, states, and state officers/agents, : and under multiple Illinois laws, including 750 ILCS 28/35(c), a law supporting said prohibitive Act of Congress with mandatory criminal contempt of court penalties expressed in 750 ILCS 28/50(b) and including 750 ILCS 5/510(a), a law that clearly restricts the authority of judges. ; Question(s): : ; Whether John G. Curry or someone similarly situated can be denied a federal . forum, contrary to standards, by misapplication of doctrines, such as RookerB Feldman or absolute judicial immunity, to override conferred jurisdiction that : would otherwise permit the U.S. District Court to hear the merits of the resulting civil rights violation case and provide remedy under 42 USC 1983, 1985, and 1986 and justice initiated by mandamus to compel under 18 : USC 242. Whether a judge, who forfeits absolute judicial immunity by committing crimes and wt deprivations of civil rights in conspiracy with others, can be sued in his or her individual capacity in violation of civil rights cases under 42 USC 1983, 1985, and 1986 and at what point is the judge stripped of his or her official character. Whether this Court’s decision in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 US 349 Supreme Court 1978 should be overruled, modified, or clarified to address the situations where judges knowingly violate state and/or federal laws to deprive a citizen of civil rights. i

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-03
Petitioner complied with order of October 7, 2019.
2019-11-12
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2019-10-24
Application (19A431) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until December 6, 2019.
2019-10-23
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.
2019-10-15
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2019-10-15
Application (19A431) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of October 7, 2019, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
2019-10-07
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 28, 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.
2019-09-19
Supplemental brief of petitioner John G. Curry filed. (Distributed)
2019-08-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-26
Waiver of right of respondents Mark Lopez, et al. to respond filed.
2019-06-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 22, 2019)

Attorneys

John G. Curry
John G. Curry — Petitioner
John G. Curry — Petitioner
Mark Lopez, et al.
Frank Henry BieszczatOffice of the Illinois Attorney General, Respondent
Frank Henry BieszczatOffice of the Illinois Attorney General, Respondent