No. 19-7871

In Re Antonio Damarcus Woodson

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2020-03-04
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: access-to-courts appellate-review civil-procedure civil-procedure-jurisdiction civil-procedure-standing-jurisdiction-federal-rule civil-rights district-court due-process federal-rules-of-civil-procedure final-judgment jurisdiction legal-standards procedural-due-process retroactive-law standing
Key Terms:
Arbitration
Latest Conference: 2020-05-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the jurisdictional requirements under 28 USC §§ 1331, 1332, 1343, 1367, 2072, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were met, and whether the plaintiff had a right to the actions be reviewed by a 'full (score) court' before 'final judgment'

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED OD WHETHER OR NOT THe TuRTShzcrIONAL REQuIREMENTS UNDER 28 USCS ZZELDOY , 2072, FeaRavP.-7bXn (©) , 80X38), 900)-@)) THe AAaTIFF Hab A RaGHT TO He AEIONS £ A Smuble busrecer tube Rewewes By A ‘Full. (scorer) Cox" BeFoRe "Gall SuhGYENT” Aud WAS THE AMONTIFE DEMTED Hes ReGHT TD The eepentia FA Thee Cube brs Cour filo & Dskecr Apel 70 Tes Comre @ wWHEMER og Nor UNER 2Busc& 2101), 2284 6X3), 2072.LFEDREDP. \DBXINC) , 80308), ¥42)“€)) A snséle Arsrecrqible Hed AuTMorcry 70 Suk SpasTeE besmrss Mid WHETHER LADER ZBULS j20, THe Courr a= Appents Hitt SueishactZs ov ApEn, 7D ENTERTAIN THE ACTIONS ON THE Mees? ISA. Sub Spore AzsHrssAL A "Fatkl OUAGHENT” USER 2BUSS2EMD ¥. FeagcouP-41) (conFlecr)® ; ” WHETHER RMT unlbER 2845S IVSXS); H2u5C$ 1961, 1997}, The. "“THeee-sreakes" pporston G The Fes Lorrtoaren hefeen Aer CAPA) Y2UKS 9M elo) ZBUSEE MISC) LS UNCOMSTETUTIONSAL ‘As Mppleen" WHERE Dr EFFECIIVEly Ares A Rosé Porson eR LemibwsT phocecsasb 2 foenid prypees CSuapeer chssrticeticns WERTH) Hts Vest ReGHT 7o hecess To Te CoupgS mid Cnt qrures A kero perrye Lt fad Perl STATUTE? D WHenter 08 NOT UNDER YZUsCS2a0Ddd $1997), $1981 ; Busc$ 2340 ; Ousc$ 301, 7062, AerSons . Facts? Descrpiruney fenarce & Pacrwb * heesouer ay A “aapty CEL! paritt JUST HES BOXERS 7D GER Hassel Quo "Brisco Husuys necessomes"), FR mw) MUECD Rule TAFEATION , WHERE SITE Lay mud SITEWIDE peCulmnnts CFA 394 p9Da>-(C), @); FAC: 33-CO1.3"4, 601-BDIOKD ) Lo Mer AvTHore the Auersimrenr Tepe for THe Rule wifes Mlebebly Verolareh , FemR 70 RECECUING (A. bescaplauineey bepoer (NORLE) Wilh A Hentai N THe MLEGAIOUS Cope Tinstty 7o BE HEARS) Uplcensstzy= UBONAL ST © Wetter ok Nor unDER IBUSCS 241,37}, 196) DB), 1962 , THe AeTEBNS oF ALL THe Tubes Filed Ip) The ApplacnsTS courl Susts Crouse Abamist STE Peesons OFrerpls EsmBGstt A "PRITERN OF PACKETEERING Aerzucty * “ A “cousporsey"? ys 2SS0E ELA), [AI

Docket Entries

2020-05-04
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition 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).
2020-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020.
2020-02-26
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 3, 2020)

Attorneys

Antonio Damarcus Woodson
Antonio D. Woodson — Petitioner
Antonio D. Woodson — Petitioner