No. 21-5264

In Re Melvin Dinkins

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2021-07-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 28-usc-1651 28-usc-3730 administrative-law civil-procedure constitutional-interpretation federal-civil-procedure federal-jurisdiction qui-tam standing statutory-interpretation supremacy-clause
Key Terms:
Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-12-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the 'usages and principles' of 28 USC 3730(b)(2) allow a person to bring a civil action for the United States Government, and whether this is further secured by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : IN QUESTION . 28 USC 1651 What are the “usages and principles” of law, in this case 28 USC 3730 . (b)(2) when legislature proclaims “A person may bring a civil action for the person and for the United States Government” — and then continues with obvious safeguards even against malfeasance? And is further secured by Article VI 2"! paragraph of the U.S. Constitution? Having exhausted all other remedies before this Petition, with five cases and then an Appeal, subsequent to the original Federal Civil ; Action 3:17-cv-00034, is the Relief requested appropriate for Supreme Court consideration of all Real Parties in Interest? . How does Federal case 3:17-cv-00034 of Petitioner, cited against judicial Order 5/19/2017 of Respondent, merit the Discretionary Powers of this United States Supreme Court? |

Docket Entries

2021-12-13
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-11-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-06
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-10-12
Petition DENIED.
2021-09-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021.
2021-08-20
Waiver of right of respondents Region Ten, CSB to respond filed.
2021-01-20
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 30, 2021)

Attorneys

Melvin Dinkins
Melvin Dinkins — Petitioner
Region Ten, CSB
James Morton Bowling IVSt. John, Bowling & Lawrence, PLC, Respondent