No. 21-7168

Ilya Liviz v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Lower Court: Massachusetts
Docketed: 2022-02-22
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: care-and-protection civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process family-law judicial-procedure jury-trial parental-rights standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-04-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether right to parent of biological parents' can be terminated by a single judge and statutorily transferred to foster parents when a parent raises their right to a jury trial?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED I. Whether right to parent of biological parents’ can be terminated by a single judge and statutorily transferred to foster parents when a parent raises their right to a jury trial? PROBLEM: Statutory care and protection proceedings are quasi-criminal because they bear many of the indicia of a criminal trial, and because numerous factors combine to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding, the defendant’s interest in personal freedom, and not simply the special Sixth & Fourteenth Amendments right to a jury trial in criminal cases, trigger the right to a jury trial. II. Should parents subject to permanent termination of parental rights have federal Due Process protection to states’ right to a jury trial? PROBLEM: All states have constitutional jury right protections for civil cases, but parents are unable to raise this right in care and protection proceedings because petitioning for a jury trial right within their respective state will subject parents to permanent and irreversible injury to the familial unit due to appellate oversight or delay.

Docket Entries

2022-04-18
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).
2022-03-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-15
Waiver of right of respondent Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to respond filed.
2022-02-22
Motion (21M67) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal Granted.
2022-01-19
MOTION (21M67) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2021-12-10
Motion (21M67) for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal filed.
2021-12-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 24, 2022)

Attorneys

Ilya Liviz
Ilya Liviz — Petitioner
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Richard S WeitzelOffice of the Massachusetts Attornay General, Respondent