No. 21-7579

Taqwa Siddeeq v. DeKalb County, Georgia

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2022-04-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: conflict-of-interest court-record due-process employee-response employee-rights government-counsel government-employment job-tenure loudermill-standard termination-intent
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does due process exist under the Loudermill standard when government counsel withholds the employee's written response?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented for Review Question 1: Does due process for terminated employee } exist under the Loudermill standard when government counsel withholds from the court record | the employee’s written response to the employer's | intent to terminate letter, and the written response | is unavailable on the record? | Under 24 CFR 92.356(b), does the statutory restrictions applicable to a job position’s tenure covered under this statute extend to a subsequent job | position’s tenure when such position is not covered | under this statute, and when a period of | unemployment separates the two position tenures? Question 3: Under 24 CFR 92.356(b), does any nonHOME related pre-existing financial interest constitute a conflict of interest for a covered person under the statute? | | | ne LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. RELATED CASES Siddeeq v. DeKalb County, No. 1:17-cv-01327SCJ, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. Summary Judgment in | favor of DeKalb County was granted by the District Court on December 2, 2019. | Siddeeg v. DeKalb County, No. 20-10155-HH. On December 20, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court ruling. | | | | | Vv STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-07-05
Petitioner complied with order of June 13, 2022.
2022-06-13
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 5, 2022, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2022-05-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/9/2022.
2022-04-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 9, 2022)
2022-03-31
Application (21A562) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until April 3, 2022.
2022-03-21
Application (21A562) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 20, 2022 to April 3, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas.

Attorneys

Taqwa Siddeeq
Taqwa Siddeeq — Petitioner
Taqwa Siddeeq — Petitioner