No. 21-1216
Yan Ping Xu v. Suffolk County, New York, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: 4th-amendment civil-rights due-process fourth-amendment frivolous frivolous-claim privacy-invasion rooker-feldman rooker-feldman-doctrine standing state-court-order warrantless-seizure
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Privacy
SocialSecurity Privacy
Latest Conference:
2022-05-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the appeal has been properly dismissed because it 'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact' Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is: Whether the appeal has been properly dismissed “because it ‘lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact’ Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).” . | | | |
Docket Entries
2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-03-16
Waiver of right of respondents Suffolk County, Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, Errol D. Toulon, Jr. Christopher Guercio, Stacey McGovern, Peter Kirwin, Sue Desena, and Bridgette Sedenfelder to respond filed.
2022-03-10
Waiver of right of respondents McCoyd, Parkas & Ronan LLP and Bill P. Parkas to respond filed.
2022-02-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 7, 2022)
Attorneys
McCoyd, Parkas & Ronan LLP and Bill P. Parkas
Christopher D. Skoczen — Furman Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, Respondent
Suffolk County, Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, Errol D. Toulon, Jr. Christopher Guercio, Stacey McGovern, Peter Kirwin, Sue Desena, and Bridgette Sedenfelder
Alysssa L. Garone — Suffolk County Attorney's Office, Respondent
Yan Ping Xu
Yan Ping Xu — Petitioner