No. 20-6504

Carolyn Barnes v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-authority delegated-authority due-process ex-post-facto fundamental-rights judicial-review motion-to-recuse recusal retaliation standard-of-review
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-01-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether it violates due process to ignore a Motion to Recuse and apply the wrong standard of review

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether it violates due process to ignore a Motion to Recuse and apply the wrong standard of review. Whether the extended preemptive “review” or “screening” process and summary disposal of claims is a delegated authority within the Constitution, or “required” by statute, or authorized by law; or whether it is merely a judicial subterfuge to discriminate against a targeted group of litigants or class of claims in violation of the United States Constitution and laws of this Republic? Whether juridical bills of pains and penalties imposed in an ex post facto manner without due process may be utilized under our Constitution to retaliate against and punish a person who has done nothing more than exercise a fundamental right? 2

Docket Entries

2021-01-25
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et al. to respond filed.
2020-09-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 4, 2021)

Attorneys

Carolyn Barnes
Carolyn Barnes — Petitioner
Carolyn Barnes — Petitioner
United States, et al.
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent