No. 19-7211
Joseph A. Brown v. Dr. Sage, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-courts civil-procedure civil-rights due-process in-forma-pauperis prisoner-litigation standing
Latest Conference:
2020-03-06
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. WhEtThER the dipoesth of Brow V Rofitt, EAL.C.DCA. CiV.No. 13-CV-02338, QUAlifEs AS A foR StRiKE 28USC.81915
2. Should this Court decide oN the "Wit o CertitAt he P Qulifis or IN ORAR PAuperis, whether this decision will be FORmA the lAw of the land;
3. CAN A pANe NCg A C StRiKe (X) BEFORE IN -ERMA PAUpERis StAtus ACCRUE A is granted;
4. Clarify CONCERNING 28US.C.91915) .WAs Jut o li his decision;
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the disposition in Brown v. Kemmerer, U.S.D.C. Del. Civ. No. 13-cv-0138, qualifies as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
Docket Entries
2020-03-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020.
2020-01-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-12-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 7, 2020)
Attorneys
Joseph A. Brown
Joseph A. Brown — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent