No. 19-7536
James Henry Simpson v. Martesha Bishop, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure criminal-liability criminal-procedure district-court due-process federal-jurisdiction federal-prosecution federal-rules immunity judicial-docketing prisoner-filing standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-03-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should a U.S. District Court docket a Criminal Complaint as a civil action?
Question Presented (from Petition)
No question identified. : IN THE ; SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . . ; PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI : Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below. ; OPINIONS BELOW ; ; [ ] For cases from federal courts: . ; The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at
Docket Entries
2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-03-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-24
Waiver of right of respondents Martesha Bishop, Brook Pettit, Joshua Boayles, Beverly Warner Snukals, Walter W. Stout, Clarence M. Jenkins, Judge Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Thomas B. Hoover to respond filed.
2020-01-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 5, 2020)
Attorneys
Martesha Bishop, Brook Pettit, Joshua Boayles, Beverly Warner Snukals, Walter W. Stout, Clarence M. Jenkins, Judge Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Thomas B. Hoover
Toby Jay Heytens — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Toby Jay Heytens — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent