No. 20-5531
Cynthia Holmes v. James Y. Becker, et al.
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 7th-amendment 8th-amendment civil-rights constitutional-challenge due-process eighth-amendment fifth-amendment first-amendment fourteenth-amendment free-speech seventh-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-12-11
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the revised South Carolina Frivolous Proceedings Act (FPA), S.C. Code § 15-36-10, is unconstitutional
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the revised South Carolina Frivolous Proceedings Act (FPA), S.C. Code § 15-36-10, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied in violation of the First, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments. H
Docket Entries
2020-12-14
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
2020-11-20
Petitioner complied with order of November 2, 2020.
2020-11-02
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until November 23, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.
2020-10-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
2020-10-13
Reply of petitioner Cynthia Holmes filed. (Distributed)
2020-09-28
Brief of respondent Mikell Scarborough in opposition filed.
2020-06-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 28, 2020)
Attorneys
Mikell Scarborough
Andrew Frederick Lindemann — Lindemann & Davis, P.A., Respondent
Andrew Frederick Lindemann — Lindemann & Davis, P.A., Respondent