No. 20-6351
Johnny Tippins v. Patricia Caruso, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-law due-process federal-law legal-compliance standing state-actors statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Securities Immigration
AdministrativeLaw Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2021-02-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recall its mandate to prevent a miscarriage of justice because the district court did not apply a law that allegedly violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
No question identified. : (hestion Presotd | | Should th Us hh linet of Ayals fi th bi Cricatt recall Hs andok 4b prewnt a miscamage F shew because +h bie Sat ad % aph a law hig Slehde ich, wi Laws $ (00.55 4 Pihaers $ 143 Civil rights complain. Whee the lagu om tedecal shbute insets Ihal urs bh tthe h he slahdes (stek law) and are dblgated ib apy shite hag Sates in § 199° achons? i
Docket Entries
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2020-12-07
Waiver of right of respondents Blaine Lafler, Barbara Meagher, and Patricia Caruso to respond filed.
2020-12-07
Reply of petitioner Johnny Tippins filed. (Distributed)
2020-11-25
Brief of respondent George Kubin and James C. Kelly in opposition filed.
2020-10-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 17, 2020)
Attorneys
Blaine Lafler, Barbara Meagher, and Patricia Caruso
Fadwa A. Hammoud — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent
Fadwa A. Hammoud — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent
George Kubin and James C. Kelly
Mary Massaron — Plunkett & Cooney, P.C., Respondent
Mary Massaron — Plunkett & Cooney, P.C., Respondent