No. 21-5811

Hazhar A. Sayed v. Virginia Page, et al

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-09-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 42-usc-1983 administrative-remedies civil-rights due-process judicial-mandate prison-litigation ross-v-blake ross-v-rlake tenth-circuit
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity
Latest Conference: 2021-12-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Do the mandates stated by this Court in Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850 (2016) require the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and U.S. Dist. Court of Colorado to find that there is no need for a plaintiff to seek relief labeled as clearly unavailable in a prison's administrative remedies prior to filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Do the mandates stated by this Court in Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850 (2016) require the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and U.S. Dist. Court of Colorado to find that there is no need for a plaintiff to seek relief labeled as clearly unavailable in a prison's administrative remedies prior to filing | suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983? | i. . | | |

Docket Entries

2021-12-06
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-09-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Hazhar A. Sayed
Hazhar A. Sayed — Petitioner