No. 22-5688

Michael G. Peters v. David Hittner, Judge, et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-09-28
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: abortion civil-rights constitutional-rights declaratory-relief due-process free-speech injunctive-relief judicial-interpretation legal-standing procedural-law standing
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference: 2022-12-02
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the courts below erred in dismissing petitioner's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of a state statute that prohibits certain speech related to abortion services

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : QUTIOWMS,) (COSLIY Z0 /. WAHEFHEC CR WOoOF 4 CWME COUMZ7 CLV OVELL/LE = Flidl fl¢lile (0A DECTIYV CONMCEANMN A \Kttb Fit Fle Pte Sones LROVIGVY fl Ph 372 Allo Bit CLL/AIS ? | . Zz. WYAT¢H Gb NOD SKIS b2¥¥000 47 a0 LOC OM FLO S While FO fWMl SOE OVEC L450 CO WOLLEI CNW AY AVVO) faith Stith 40 Bl-C U0 tlD? 2 VA Wit il 1YOR SFIS LECH FO LL SH -tLiibbt COLA FO Of LLOTE A CLLR EZ CretrIaty Lei Cte¢z At PLOFLOHG9 Live 7 y VAb Fite Of NO 75S LHEAO Fo | Sat 20 PiblSIS AC7}BL SI—VOCENCE 76 ANS ULE Yetll Lb A7LHE Sl (SHES AW) SILLWVbID PO AV POLE PL W/CM. SUDO 40 UMD CYP ULL Hb, C20LCFE MMMVCC DLfitt aa! ACC tue T BIV) LULIIICEL FUE Wl f ZZ? | | LIST. OF fllP LAS All bl Fits tlitbO fl FE PAL PANE RECBITEO LOSS fAS FE tf A JIECEOE 200 COME: CO FG (fOL/ AHO S OVC SIG! Calr~ LAH CODES. Ritl be) CLSe0S SAM COLT: 2/-7E/O CRUEL hil UNUSCAC PUN MENS LA-779OS AN THOS, DUSNV\V LIE COUNMLEL L/7966 OLVA Yt FINALE -22S5-S S Ovi | 24-SBG SCO77 PbCLSSOF CLEP foe Cr CI-77YO PAO C4AHMUEISS ~(vEP CGAL SL LV-7797) J4KHES f2OONE C8202 COUEO-LY? C/-BO3SE ZNNOUENI LC}OMCZ OK ZELES L/-7EY) PSI S7bMMMN« Pot) LY-7ESY DAVID Y9ITF/VG LY/-7ISIS LUMUSWY SHE Ve 78S / ZA SLOP fliity SGANWVS LEXLC FELL Z2I-7SVYD FD SWE COLZE-LZ L°-EY6G) fYOLIWY SALLE CfC$ LPL 2/-2/ 37/0 SUObE (lhe bf fea LI-YOB/S SHOT f0lES SAL CTT 22-2O0AS9D KO. /SDLE -SLNIA NN LOE #L-f? 22-2009 f4{ LLIN ; 2220460 4EO.SUMLS CHK -L fhe SPLLL ZZ. Z2E-2008L G7 LEK 22-2Z009%6 COUP LEA 2OE! flO Fn OT 2L-LOOGY = SCd77 Abb SU bli LL2-SAY¥O fh UY SHLES SAC LL-YOS7 5 — LLUISW SFELUIS 7k 2AYQ60 LLISWV SHAS f7bC ZO-YOSGIT SKLIYY SHEAIS LAV OCRS Z/I-LOSSO fEEW SHOAL PALO 2/-2°37Y ZFS fECIIC SFA CAS 2/-20669 ChléS BOBODDF (TrOob#-ov 2/-YOVYES PAWVAO ft bys SACVACES LO-LObG/2Z SIMA D ELV OLDS LHCLIDAYD Z20°VY tht ltilivows Shes Z/-YOESO SLLVAC Z/-2ZOCOR CSTV CK CNC} LCEEZLL LC ZL-20373 K-HO WES CAF YY EEL Z/-2060/ FO). SCDEE COCHY-C” Z2-292 YO LOI SUWOEF CAGE” Z22-S7G/ FIO lL SCV} CONIA aa Z CLE L2-S8YUL BCOFCRL SNNOLENSF COM £2-YSOSOY ROSHAN 6 PHO SUMS COEC7-Y LE-S3I990 LYN --LO.SCISE COCO 22-5299 StI N~ LOO. S/S UDSC CY GEL ~CY 22-YORT/ COSTA ~ Kb). SVOE (WIE Roe 22-202YS AO/AFHAL COBY Chia Ze 2220233 WD PUT MWCCE fS#MFES 22-20 f2 LZOhhWN OOO NEL -lak?. Clb? | Zi. | SI! 4 Cha 7) ZE-2O02YVY SOLAS S74 0 FLGEP IT 22-YO3F/ COSA -4KOA SCOVGE CLLLED 22-Y629C ALOULN Fel Cobre. CS 22-20/E8 5 CHM O SWPP Abel aS SAME PF 22YOSVZ KOSS COV) ALF 22-2007/ LOA CXS -CAC? AQT 22-20/ EZ MN ALVA PET WIOA CHA A C77 22-20/90 VaN faamMA ~L%000 (NY COL? 22-LoOY/szZ PWENZAYL LA COC &”? L2-20/79 FOB A. LCLEEZ =~ CONIC 76 OS. SOLLLOQY 57 COU: G-LL2-V-O/ FSS Lab ~Lhyory W2E-LV-02286 itty fob 7i/ Onin YLl-Vb67E RAHN RYH LOLEA-C/ /722-767 SALl pothe Yfrtlle yrs YI2LCAVW-O/ S06 LHIE VASE Si22CV-O066E = LBWO LTMNEE COM COML-CfT G22-“V-Y67FY K.SORIOWY C60? COCLOS Si 22LV-S SCO rit YiLL-LV-O0765 LES MBOFZ W22-CU-OS PFS LOLLY SEB AUC CH Ot Y'22-CV-O0E9? LELPUGCT AN Palm A'22-Cb-02208 SABLE pon SILL OO2/Y Cavin COD DOE. TZ. CAUSES: TAM ELSE CY GURGQOCIIHS CHD EFA CHEZ: er ee Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. at 353 n.3 11 | Neitake v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827 (1989) 14 Simkin v. Bruce, 406 F. 3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir. 2005) 11 Smith v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 883 N.E. 2d 803 (Ind. 2008) 12 Legal Service Corp. v. Velazgues, 531 U.S. 533, 542-43 121 S.Ct 1043 (2001) 12 Prison LitigationReform Act (PLRA) 13 Fed. Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) 12 Racketeering Influence and Crrupt Organizations (RICO) 12. RICO Anti-SLAPP (strtegic lawsuit against public participation 8F. 12 | SHISCE CL CWYVFLLVIS GUWNS BELOW . . . . ; . ff | SLIOISIWOTFVWV se, Soo ; . .. CONS A FUAASVACL YO4VO SPA FAUFAEY PROVISVONL SIVVOLLED . . . oo. TES SIA TENIENF OF Foe CASE. 2... 6H SLMESUNS AP GLOVE FOE Yes. /S> CONITLLEIS SOY. . . Yo AMEX F6_avaat yp MVLINO/ KX OS: SORAMY AortthT CoLer SDACLISNY DML LV : / SVS Phe SALVPKIVIVE COCEFP CF FEHE CHAO SFAHS LPPETI FIONN FOR W&/T BA” CH? WC at/ fab boner rerpeck ily PCOS WA A wet, Os re S

Docket Entries

2022-12-05
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.
2022-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
2022-08-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 28, 2022)

Attorneys

Michael G. Peters
Michael G. Peters — Petitioner
Michael G. Peters — Petitioner