No. 22-7281

Steven Ray Rouse v. North Carolina

Lower Court: North Carolina
Docketed: 2023-04-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-procedure constitutional-rights discovery discovery-violations due-process evidence ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-procedure prosecutorial-misconduct witness-identification
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2023-06-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

How could lawyer (Rick Farqutte) send Steven Ray Rouse at discovery of 3 facts and 1? were duplicates?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : 6 @ _ | OU ESTE on) PRESENTED | i | THE: VELES 15 BR-2F4,.50 EVEWLTWES S | DDEVTZFLCATIow REFOnmM ACT, WHY Is THERE ___|war_a ererune of tHe peFebANNT? pr HE _ SCEWE, DARK IW THE BALK OF THE PATHOL OAR, WITNESS SAYS. tHE STPTE TROOPER Pip MoT. ; | VON HRVE BL FUDSHELG RT 086 THE PLOTURE HSED WAS NOT K PLICTVLE AT SCEWE , 2, |THE W665 I5SA264,52 (13) EYEWLIWESS IDEWTLEICATION Rerorem ACT. Why Is . STE _RAY ROUSE 06-28-64 OW THE BOTTO” ) OF THE WETWVESS STATEMENT? THAD | | PEVER. SAW THIS MAN BEFORE AWD _E itwvep A“ mile rH RdveH THE WOsDs, WERE | | L Aur And FISH, | _ 3.| THE STATES WETWESS ITWFACT TOD THE a Court, HE DID mor see sTéVew R, RovsE _ DRIVERG, WHY DID Lhwyle (Ltk PAMTTE) _ a MoT PersvE HES! _ _ 4 | THE STATES WITVESS KIETH BOWLINMG INFACT TOLD the Cet, HE BID MOT SELF _STEVER RAY _ ROUSE pRivin’. WAY DID LAWYER (Ritk FARPOTTE) wor peRsue tHrs* | _ S| STATES WITWESS GALLY GREW Fold THE CovRT HE DID NOT SEE STEVE RIF _(UQUSE DRIVING. WHY DID Laurer Qerek paeeorie) 110T PERSUE THES. C PRE 1) ? . . “~) . | Questia) PReswT@D =| HOw COU) LAWYER CRICK FARQUTTE) SEND STEVEN RAY Rouse At DISCOVERY OF 3% fbCS AIVD 1? WERE DUrPcLenTes © | 2. Hw) CoviD THES BE THE PETITIONER DISCovKy ¢.| How Coy THE GWE 159-925 AVBYOO) , OF piscoveky, BE Com PrrereL/ AVOLDED ® 4,| How CluiD THE LAWS COVERING THE USE _ OF DISCOVERY BE TOrhly LENoREDE. _ 10| How CowiD THE FLLGAT LWSTRVETLOW BE _) WEN, WHER THERE Wits Mo FLIGHTS _ _ Cou lb THES CAVSE LRRE FARACLE MES TD EMT TE RATBOnS _ | PLD IWFReT THis (Stow up) THAT LAWYER _ . (ROCK PreeoTTe) Took To A SUDSE Terre _ CAUSE EMRE EAR AOLE DAMAGE: EW Fo tLe ie PAGES WERE SEWT Td SH LTWEFECTIVE ASSTSTAWLE OF CwHSEL, __ i2,, WHY DID SVD6E _HIGASIMZTH DENY THE REGUEST~ tk. the VSE OF Forte FORM 4 L WAS Eye _provveeD. 3) why was He 4 awd [4 yp mendmen7s TOTRLULY Lone EDS (EXCESSIVE _F0ecé) I, WHY WAS 0 WRC Ea be PertnlCED WHEN kG Dol — wns vSeD® WHY wis E Brew © THMes® Is WHY ats A kA Doe. Chee Fue A rnuspemennmenT, tk 6S DIFACT THE Thue USE) IN cutgae nerirty? CPAGE 2) g Questions FRAEWTE __ 12\ wily Din carer (iSite PACROTTE) AGREE TO | eye currtnG oF 1H Boby bh eC | gL WAY WAS (speven &, RovsSé) ONLY GET To SEE 23 MIN ures of % 40 minvil€e FILLE. ce 7 1G wity wR ana 31S A-YOl CD) wor vsED © pur nto €FECTS WHY Wel DEPUTTES 867 KEETA Bowen &, (who Wo Wnge7e LIBEK? roe mewsultele 00) AnD DOTY baer Gebel AtLww ED To VSE EyCESSIVE FORCE § — — __— _-20 pity _wlhs THE Demand FOR SLED TRIER | wer penuniecey® LT uns SUB ETTED ThE 3 (31% pay of Afery 2020, T WENT Te tern. OM THE &E oF maken 2021 | ee WHY wines THE ynitTED. STATES COWSTETUT EAM AereLe | secreiw 18 oF THE. MokRTn CALE (pnSTETUTEG MoT RECONTZED é TT ee | — ae CPAGCE 3) ;

Docket Entries

2023-06-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-03-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 15, 2023)

Attorneys

Steven Ray Rouse
Steven Ray Rouse — Petitioner
Steven Ray Rouse — Petitioner