No. 21-232

Veena Sharma v. Domenic S. Terranova, et al.

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2021-08-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: civil-procedure dismissal-without-hearing due-process first-circuit hearing judicial-review jury-trial pro-se-petition procedural-due-process standing statute-of-limitations summons
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2022-01-07 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner's claim without issuing summons to Respondent, without any hearing, and without jury trial as requested by Petitioner is sufficient for review by the honorable United States Supreme Court

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner’s claim without issuing summons to Respondent, without any hearing, and without jury trial as requested by Petitioner is sufficient for review by the honorable United States Supreme Court. 2. Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner’s claim on wrong/incorrect interpretation of Statue of Limitations (10 years) is sufficient for review by the honorable United States Superior Court. 83. Whether the District Court and U.S. Appeals Court for the First Circuit decision of dismissing Petitioner’s claim on grounds of Preclusion is sufficient | for review by the honorable Untied States Supreme Court. . | ee CO | PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGS “1. Veena Sharma (PRO-SE): Plaintiff : . 2. Attorney Domenic S. Terranova et. al: Defendants |

Docket Entries

2022-01-10
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-12-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-12
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-11-12
Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2021-10-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
2021-08-26
Waiver of right of respondent Peter J. Caruso, Sr. to respond filed.
2021-08-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 16, 2021)

Attorneys

Peter J. Caruso, Sr.
Peter J. Caruso IICaruso & Caruso, LLP, Respondent
Peter J. Caruso IICaruso & Caruso, LLP, Respondent
Veena Sharma
Veena Sharma — Petitioner
Veena Sharma — Petitioner