No. 22-7060

Zachary James McAlexander v. D.G. Yuengling & Son, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2023-03-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights consumer-protection corporate-liability due-process false-advertising first-amendment seventh-amendment standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2023-05-25
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Why is the right to petition the government for grievances not being honored in this case, along with others, in accordance with the First Amendment and further why are decisions being made by lower courts without hearings or in front of a jury, which is contrary to the Seventh Amendment?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Why is the right to petition the government for grievances not being honored in this case, along with others, in accordance with the First Amendment and further why are decisions being made by lower courts without hearings or in front of a jury, which is contrary to the Seventh Amendment? 2. Why are companies being allowed to advertise and sell dangerous substances, such as those manufactured by the defendants of this case, to the public without any government regulation of said substances and why are they not being ordered by lower courts to pay damages to injured persons who consumed their products, as is the right of petitioners under the First Amendment? ; 3. Red Bull claims it "gives wings" to the one who buys it. Petitioner, Zachary James McAlexander, has not received any wings from Red Bull despite purchasing their product. Are companies allowed to make false claims to the American people, harm them, and subsequently escape by using attorneys who care nothing for other people or our country and by having no juries in our courts? 4. Defendants deprived Petitioner of liberty and property without due process of law. They harmed him physically without consent and interfered with his wealth. The lower courts violated the Seventh Amendment. Can companies in the US harm unsuspecting citizens and deprive them of life, liberty, and property without due process of law using attorneys and lower courts that violate the Seventh Amendment?

Docket Entries

2023-09-07
Case considered closed.
2023-05-30
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 20, 2023, 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.
2023-05-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/25/2023.
2023-04-21
Brief of respondents D.G. Yuengling & Son Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
2023-04-19
Waiver of right of respondent Living Essentials, LLC to respond filed.
2023-03-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 21, 2023)

Attorneys

D.G. Yuengling & Son Inc., et al.
Chad A. ShultzGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Respondent
Chad A. ShultzGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Respondent
Living Essentials, LLC
Paul B. TrainorQuintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA, Respondent
Paul B. TrainorQuintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer PA, Respondent
Zachary J. McAlexander
Zachary James McAlexander — Petitioner
Zachary James McAlexander — Petitioner