No. 22-657

In Re Roger Towers, et ux.

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2023-01-17
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-133 28-usc-44 5th-amendment article-iii constitutional-jurisdiction due-process judicial-distribution judicial-referral magistrates-act
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FifthAmendment Securities Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-03-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the distribution of Article III judgeships satisfy the Due Process Clause and/or Article III?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : QUESTIONS an In context of the refusal of Congress to create : additional Article III Judgeships: 1. Does the distribution of Article III judgeships pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§44 (circuit judges) &133 (district judges) satisfy the Due Process Clause of the , Fifth Amendment and/or Article III? ; 2. Should the Magistrates Act be invalidated due ; to a false presumption of “total control” of the : referral process? : : 3. Should the judgments in these related cases be set aside due to: a) an unlawful exercise of : jurisdiction; b) denial of due process; or, c) in the interests of justice?

Docket Entries

2023-03-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-02-15
Waiver of right of respondents County of San Joaquin, et al. to respond filed.
2023-01-06

Attorneys

County of San Joaquin
Derek Paul ColeCole Huber LLP, Respondent
Derek Paul ColeCole Huber LLP, Respondent
County of San Joaquin, et al.
Derek P. ColeCota Cole & Huber LLP, Respondent
Derek P. ColeCota Cole & Huber LLP, Respondent
Roger Towers, et al.
Roger David Towers — Petitioner
Roger David Towers — Petitioner