No. 20-7075

J. P. Parnell v. Doctor Chen, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-02-09
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: administrative-review civil-procedure civil-rights due-process inmate-litigation judicial-discretion medical-need prison-reform procedural-bar standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-04-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

At what point does the judiciary have an obligation to curtail efforts to procedurally bar inmate litigation and consider gross salient factors that are persuasive even considering PLRA and/or AEDPA?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED At what point 44 the judiciary obliged to curtail efforts to procedunakly bar inmate Litigation and consider gross salient factors that ane persuasive even considering PLRA and/onx AEDPA? Hexe, dated 3 December 2015, at-ban plaintiff appealed to the Calif. onnia State Auditor for help in uncovering the guile alleged in Parnell v . Chen, Case No. 19-16163, of the concerted coercing to cause indigent inmate to sign-fon and accept expensive orthopaedic footwear with no genuine medicak need. , ; : Even following at-bar Litigation prompting CDCR to revamp its inmate co-pay system with the adoption of "Notice of Change to Health Care Regula. tions," (attached hereto at

Docket Entries

2021-04-19
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
2020-12-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 11, 2021)

Attorneys

Chen, et al.
Ernesto Carlos DominguezCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Ernesto Carlos DominguezCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
J.P. Parnell
J P Parnell — Petitioner
J P Parnell — Petitioner