No. 22-6827
Sandra Rumanek v. Sherry R. Fallon, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: access-to-courts administrative-law civil-rights court-resolution due-process equal-protection judicial-review legal-questions petitioner-rights procedural-due-process right-to-be-heard standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-04-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does petitioner Sandra Rumanek have the right to be heard?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Does petitioner Sandra Rumanek have the right to be heard? ° If so, is it incumbent on this Court to resolve these questions of law?
Docket Entries
2023-04-17
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
2023-03-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-03-08
Waiver of right of respondents Timothy M. Holly, Mary I Akhimien and Matthew F. Boyer to respond filed.
2023-03-02
Waiver of right of respondents Louis J. Rizzo, Jr. and Sandra F. Clark to respond filed.
2023-02-27
Waiver of right of respondent David G. Culley to respond filed.
2023-02-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 24, 2023)
Attorneys
David G. Culley
Louis J. Rizzo, Jr. and Sandra F. Clark
Arthur D. Kuhl — RegerRizzo & Darnall, LLP, Respondent
Arthur D. Kuhl — RegerRizzo & Darnall, LLP, Respondent
Timothy M. Holly, Mary I Akhimien and Matthew F. Boyer
John D. Balaguer — Balaguer Milewski & Imbrogno, LLP, Respondent
John D. Balaguer — Balaguer Milewski & Imbrogno, LLP, Respondent
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent