No. 19-964

Christopher Lawrence v. University Hospital, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-02-03
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-rights diversity due-process federal-procedure interpleader interpleader-statute minimal-diversity pro-se-litigant standing subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2020-03-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 11th Circuit violated petitioners' rights as beneficiaries to allow and select enjoining siblings as claimants and real parties in a negligence civil action under the interpleader statute

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; 1. Whether the decision of the 11th Circuit violates Petitioners Chaslie Lawrence and Petrice Ricks rights as beneficiaries to allow and select : enjoining siblings as claimant’s and part of real : parties’ litigants in a negligence civil action under : ; the interpleader statute; and if so, and because no : medical malpractice and wrongful death claims was : named, Did the Lower Court usage of Georgia State : ; law was in error abridging Petitioners’ right to full access and jurisdiction of the Court? | : 1 2. The Supreme Court is asked to review minimal ; diversity of having at least one party to the suit citizenship and domicile different from one party to : the citizenry and domicile under the new standards I of constitutionality as oppose to the statutory deter[ minants; if so, can enjoined parties to a federal | ; lawsuit have the same entitlements of recognition | as a party to the suit? If both conditions are relei vant and the parties never apply a state law or tort ! claim, are the enjoined parties considered real ‘ persons having an interest in the lawsuit and ; i claims? i ' 3. Did the 11th Circuit err when they excluded the domicile and citizenry of diverse litigants Gwen i Lawrence, Gregory Lawrence, Charlie Lawrence Jr. and Petrice Ricks as enjoined litigants under the : : Interpleader statute permissibility pursuant to oO Judicial Code § 41 (26)(a)(i)(a), Article III, § 2. U.S.A Constitution. | ! | 4. Petitioners request for review is taken with understanding the High Could elect to not review and that such review would have to be for compelling reasons. Petitioners / know other reasons that could move the Court to consider a case when life and death ' are involved under which institutions that ; are professionally trained supposed to exercise proper care for citizenry | { i . I : i ii | t ~

Docket Entries

2020-03-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-04
Waiver of right of respondents University Hospital, Jim Davis, Renee Gallup, Dr. William Farr and Edward Burr to respond filed.
2019-12-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 4, 2020)
2019-09-25
Application (19A337) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 7, 2019.
2019-09-20
Application (19A337) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 8, 2019 to December 7, 2019, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Christopher Lawrence
Christopher Lawrence — Petitioner
University Hospital, Jim Davis, Renee Gallup, Dr. William Farr and Edward Burr
Joseph H. HuffKilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP, Respondent