No. 19-8531
Marc Pierre Hall v. M. Inch, et al.
IFP
Key Terms:
Securities
Securities
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the petitioner's access to the courts to seek redress for the deprivation of his basic fundamental rights was denied in violation of due process of law
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \. akalher Dastir stacy drowed Alhathe Fee. Peq iene” QUISUSAT 36 USC 1A SG) Caused cel 0 or depeniertion o& Wis access “bs he Couer-to Sede basic fundarsenta\ Aelsrs set Wieraats renersa\ Under Aue process o& las. W
Docket Entries
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). Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
2020-07-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-22
Waiver of right of federal respondents to respond filed.
2020-05-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 22, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent