No. 20-1805
Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga v. United States, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-procedure civil-rights district-court due-process federal-civil-rights ninth-circuit standing summary-judgment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are the United States District Courts routinely deciding disputed facts in favor of the defending state court actor's motion for summary judgment under a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint in order to deny United States citizens basic due process rights?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Are the United States District Courts routinely deciding disputed facts in favor of the defending state court actor’s motion for summary judgment under a 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint in order to deny United States citizens basic due process rights? Are these summary judgments consistently being upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? : ii :
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2021-07-22
Waiver of right of respondents Chicago Tile Company and Jeanie O'Connor to respond filed.
2021-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 26, 2021)
Attorneys
Chicago Tile Company and Jeanie O'Connor
Chicago Title Company and Jeanie O'Connor
United States, et al.
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent