No. 19-5213

Arthur O. Armstrong v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-07-17
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 4th-amendment civil-procedure civil-procedure-rule-60-b-6 constitutional-rights due-process fourteenth-amendment fourth-amendment liberty property rule-60b6
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-11-15 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any relief

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether Petitioner is entitled to relief, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any relief. Whether Petitioner was deprived of liberty and property without due process of law in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Whether petitioner was deprived of liberty and/or property without due process of law. Whether Respondents violated petitioner's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution to the United States. Whether petitioner is entitled to his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth ° Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Docket Entries

2019-11-18
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
2019-10-30
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-23
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2019-10-07
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). Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2019-08-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-05
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-07-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 16, 2019)

Attorneys

Arthur O. Armstrong
Arthur O. Armstrong — Petitioner
Arthur O. Armstrong — Petitioner
UNITED STATES
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent