No. 19-6736

Ralph Colombo v. Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2019-11-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: arbitrary-enforcement california-law categorical-approach civil-procedure due-process legal-enforcement statutory-interpretation vexatious-litigant void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-01-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether California's vexatious litigant statute utilizes the categorical approach and should be declared void for vagueness

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether California's vexatious litigant statute,in key provisions, utilizes the categorical approach, requiring guesswork and inviting arbitrary enforcement, and should be declare void for vagueness. ae

Docket Entries

2020-01-21
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-10
Waiver of right of respondent Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, et al. to respond filed.
2019-11-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 23, 2019)

Attorneys

Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs, et al.
Robert T. DolanGaglione Dolan & Kaplan, Respondent
Robert T. DolanGaglione Dolan & Kaplan, Respondent
Ralph Colombo
Ralph Colombo — Petitioner
Ralph Colombo — Petitioner