No. 21-46
Joseph John Plany v. United States
Response Waived
Tags: case-severance caseloads civil-procedure constitutional-violation district-court-jurisdiction due-process ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-caseload jurisdiction standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction over Mr. Plany's case?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the District Court had jurisdiction over Mr. Plany’s case? 2. Whether Mr. Plany received ineffective assistance of counsel? 4. Whether Mr. Plany was denied due process when a severance was not granted? 4, Whether high caseloads for district court judges constitute a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Article III of the United States Constitution?
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-07-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-07-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-07-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2021)
Attorneys
Joseph John Plany
Anders V. Rosenquist — Rosenquist & Associates, Petitioner
Anders V. Rosenquist — Rosenquist & Associates, Petitioner
United States
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent