No. 20-7807
Woodrow Andrew Clark v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure claims-assessment constitutional-law district-court due-process judicial-review legal-standard patent procedural-merit reasonable-jurists standing takings
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Privacy
HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-05-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether reasonable jurists would find the District Court's assessment of Claims one and two debatable or wrong? Or that the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether reasonable jurists would find the District Court's assessment of Claims one and two debatable or wrong? Or that : the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to : Proceed further? cos ii
Docket Entries
2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-22
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-04-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 20, 2021)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent