No. 19-7186

James R. Young v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-01-06
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bivens bivens-claim civil-rights due-process federal-courts federal-review fifth-amendment in-forma-pauperis inmate-rights property property-theft standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment FourthAmendment Punishment
Latest Conference: 2020-02-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals abuse Petitioner's 5th Amendment due-process right to be heard on his Bivens claim on appeal by summarily dismissing his appeal without ever hearing or addressing his Bivens claim of complaint [which is a due-process violation]

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED (1) Did the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals abuse Petitioner's 5th Amendment due process right to be heard on his Bivens claim on appeal by summarily dismissing his appeal without ever hearing or addressing his Bivens claim of complaint [which is a due process violation]. (2) Did the District Court abuse it's discretion when it dismissed Petitioner's ; Bivens claim of complaint without hearing or addressing his Bivens claim. (3) Does a denial of a federal Bivens claim review involving "theft" of an inmate's . property by a BOP officer warrant 'new perspective! federal review consideration under the Parratt v. Taylor doctrine by this Court. (4) Can a Petitioner file in forma pauperis in the Supreme Court in a Civil Case [Particularly when the BOP is already under investigation for similar inmate abuse violations pending in another case recently filed in the lower court]. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) demanded the BOP conduct a thorough review at Coleman due to the pending case and the 'systemic' abuse. 2

Docket Entries

2020-03-02
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).
2020-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.
2020-01-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2019-12-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 5, 2020)

Attorneys

James R. Young
James R. Young — Petitioner
James R. Young — Petitioner
United States, et al.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent