No. 19-8480

Stanley J. Caterbone v. National Security Agency

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2020-05-19
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: abuse-of-authority civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-violations due-process filing-restrictions government-abuse government-misconduct judicial-misconduct national-security pro-se-petition standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess Patent Privacy
Latest Conference: 2020-11-13 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is there Judicial Misconduct and Abuse of Authority

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION NUMBER ONE: Is there Judicial Misconduct and Abuse of Authority and are the courts attempting to hide the fact that there are abuses by the military and intelligence agencies, possibly originating out of the National Security Agency, or NSA including COITELPRO operations and still going on today all of which entail numerous violations of the U.S. Constitution? PETITIONER Stan J. Caterbone has provided substantial supporting evidence, especially considering U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Schmehl's Opinion which states and the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld “as noted above, Caterbone has a history of filing mumerous frivolous complaints regarding his allegations of government mind-control in this Court. In light of that history, the Court places Caterbone on notice that further baseless filings may result in restriction of his filing privileges. See Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329,333 (3d Cir. 1990) (“When a district court is confronted with a pattern of conduct from which it can only conclude that a litigant is intentionally abusing the judicial process and will continue to do so unless restrained, we believe it is entitled to resort to its power of injunction and contempt to protect its process."). An appropriate Order follows. Additionally any second amended complaint shall, as clearly and briefly as possible, state the factual basis for Caterbone's claims against each defendant, state the basis for the Court's jurisdiction over the claim, and state the relief that Caterbone seeks . from this Court. Caterbone should not reassert any claims regarding the government's mind control over him or other claims that the Court has determined to be factually frivolous. If Caterbone files a second amended complaint, the Clerk of Court should not make service until so ORDERED ” ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER ONE: YES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Page No. 4 of 40 Pages Tuesday May 12, 2020 by Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se PETITIONER

Docket Entries

2020-11-16
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2020-10-28
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-20
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2020-10-05
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).
2020-06-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-17
Waiver of right of respondent National Security Agency to respond filed.
2020-03-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 18, 2020)

Attorneys

National Security Agency
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Stanley J. Caterbone
Stanley J. Caterbone — Petitioner
Stanley J. Caterbone — Petitioner