No. 19-8818

Sharon Johnson v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2020-06-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights disability-accommodation due-process equal-protection judicial-bias pro-se pro-se-rights standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HealthPrivacy
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether in pro per parties are entitled to the same U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights as represented parties, and how can they uphold those rights without having legal knowledge, a 7 law degree, or counsel

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether in pro per parties are entitled to the same U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights as represented parties, and how can they uphold those rights without having legal knowledge, a 7 law degree, or counsel. 2. What constitutes judicial bias, and is disqualification the correct remedy. 3. Does a disability require reasonable accommodation by a judge, such as petitioner's Asperger’s autism and her attempt to speak in court to assert her rights, and does denial of accommodation violate her U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights. 4. Are federal HIPAA protections or California’s Marsy’s Law, or states’ ‘ restraining order laws applicable to related cases in order to protect the same party, for example from retaliation. 5. Can states apply their small claims statutes unequally and does that deny plaintiffs their U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights.

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 27, 2020)

Attorneys

Sharon Johnson
Sharon Johnson — Petitioner
Sharon Johnson — Petitioner