No. 20-6334
Chrishma Hunter Singhderewa v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-rights defendant-rights due-process judicial-procedure legal-representation motion-to-appear representation standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-03-05
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the State of California denying a citizen of the United States of America their constitutional right to representation by refusing to acknowledge a defendant's Motion to Appear while entering motions, pleas and judgments against them?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented . ; 7 '. Is the State of California denying a citizen of the United States of America their : constitutional right to representation by refusing to acknowledge a defendants _ ‘Motion to Appear while entering motions, pleas and judgments against them? II. =
Docket Entries
2021-03-08
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
2021-02-09
Petitioner complied with order of January 19, 2021.
2021-01-19
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 9, 2021, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a).
2020-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
2020-12-22
Application (20A114) denied by Justice Kagan.
2020-12-17
Application (20A114) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2020-11-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2020)