No. 19-6291

Josephat Mua v. The O'Neal Firm, LLP

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2019-10-17
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights due-process employment-discrimination retaliation standing summary-judgment title-vii tortious-interference
Key Terms:
Arbitration SocialSecurity DueProcess EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether District of Columbia court of Appeals can ignore instances of retaliation under Title VII and other serious violations

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether District of Columbia court of Appeals can ignore instances of retaliation under Title VII and other serious violations in dismissing a case after proffer of evidence of retaliatory animus and his own evidence of demonstrated causal connection between his alleged protected activity and his termination involving tortious interference of counsel? . 2. Whether the Court erred in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant rule 60 and finding that there was no organized scheme. 3. Whether a Court Commits Error When It Fails To Consider All of the Facts and Circumstances Underlying Equitable Relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 : 4, Whether the District of Columbia court of Appeals erred in Dismissing Petitioner’s claims of fraud, fraud in the inducement, conspiracy to commit fraud, negligence, breach of contracts inter alia? . 5. Did the lower courts err as a matter of law in which contract containing several provisions including filing of whistleblower claims was violated by the respondent? 6. Cana court determine whether Title VII violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a congruent and proportional response to the constitutional problems that it remedies, and : thus validly abrogates the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity as applied to Petitioner’s allegations, without first determining whether Title VII violation bars the : conduct Petitioner Mr. Mua alleges? 7. Whether failure to docket important evidence and to limit presentation of Exhibits was harmful to the Petitioner Mr. Mua in the Small claims division? ‘ 8. The lower court had no mandate to review discrimination case as a small claims division of the Superior Court and the Decision undermines the title VII Requirement that ; employees report Harassment at the first opportunity.

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
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).
2019-12-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-10-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 18, 2019)
2019-08-13
Application (19A120) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until October 6, 2019.
2019-07-28
Application (19A120) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 7, 2019 to October 6, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Josephat Mua
Josephat Mua — Petitioner