No. 21-5026
Kevin L. Martin v. Ashlynn Ledford
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-courts actual-innocence civil-rights constitutional-law due-process fair-trial ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-review jurisdictional-issue legal-procedure procedural-rights statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair trial
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED : 1. whethex pistit couct AbtdsE Pia aiscxedion by dea maictin AC Fundamerte| saght fe A Fak fora} 2censtitutpena| Aight te 2. whethe«< picteict court abuse of plsexctes by efuse fo Appaintinint a ccunse| en mando case fcfece setup dimeling Bhew pArtjudiec by hi S pisteet ceva distegacc dl morte, c lain 3. whethet ceucte FE Argel deny muctian A Fundsmende | Aight fe ebfam ACCzTSS te courted te shew hep thts weuld PTteVE he was lanotant had this pcferdand did Acts frates ? (as
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2021-08-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-06
Waiver of right of respondent Ashlynn Ledford to respond filed.
2021-06-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 6, 2021)
Attorneys
Ashlynn Ledford
Aaron Thomas Craft — Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Respondent
Kevin Martin
Kevin L. Martin — Petitioner