Christine Mire v. University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated, et al.
SocialSecurity DueProcess FirstAmendment Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Whether the lower courts' imposition of punitive sanctions violates Petitioner's rights under the First and/or Eighth Amendments
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Courts may not impose punitive sanctions upon attorneys to deter colorable arguments that insulate judicial determinations from legitimate challenges without implicating central First Amendment concerns and/or violating the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. In this purported civil rights case, Respondents, a private hospital system, attempted to conceal their health care fraud scheme and the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction by ignoring federal disclosure requirements and through material misrepresentations made to the district court regarding their employment relationship with Plaintiff. Thus, the true catalyst for Respondents’ retaliation through punitive sanctions is Petitioner’s discovery of the sophisticated healthcare scheme that exposed Plaintiffs employment by a private actor and lack of state action required to bring a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, while this case was pending on appeal for the first time, an intervening and controlling decision was released by the Louisiana Supreme Court and Respondents were judicially determined to be private employers in a vaccine mandate case thereby implicating principles of estoppel and the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether the lower courts imposition of punitive sanctions violates Petitioner’s rights under the First and/or Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution where Petitioner made arguments supported by existing law/evidence and complied with her duties as an officer of the court. ii 2. Whether the lower courts abused its constitutional authority by failing to examine its jurisdiction, uncontroverted evidence in the record, and/or give full faith and credit to an intervening and controlling decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court. iii PARTIES TO THE PETITION Petitioner and Appellant below e Christine M. Mire Respondents and Below e Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated e Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated e University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated iv LIST OF PROCEEDINGS DIRECT FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 23-30335 J. Cory Cordova, Plaintiff, and Christine M. Mire, Appellant, v. University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated; Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated; Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated, Opinion Date: January 31, 2024 Order Denying Recall and Stay of Mandate: April 11, 2024 U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana Civil Action Number: 6:19-CV-1027 J. Cory Cordova, Plaintiff, v. Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College Board of Supervisors; Karen Curry; Nicholas Sells; Kristi Anderson; University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated; Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated; Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated, Defendants Judgment on Order of Remand: March 24, 2021 Memorandum Order (Cost and Attorney’s Fees): April 14, 2021 Memorandum Ruling (Motion to Vacate): August 23, 2022 Memorandum Ruling (Cost and Attorney’s Fees): October 10, 2022 Memorandum Ruling (Sanctions): February 27, 2023 Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees: April 13, 2023 v PRIOR PROCEEDINGS U.S. Supreme Court Supreme Court of the United States No. 21-1280 In re: J. Cory Cordova, Petitioner Petition for an Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus Denied: May 16, 2022 Federal Courts U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 21-30239 J. Cory Cordova, Plaintiff/ Appellant, versus Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical College Board of Supervisors; Karen Curry; Nicholas Sells; Kristi Anderson; University Hospital & Clinics, Incorporated; Lafayette General Medical Center, Incorporated; Lafayette General Health System, Incorporated, Defendants / Appellees On Initial Appeal Per Curiam Opinion: November 8, 2021 Denial of Rehearing: December 16, 2021 Per Curiam Order: April 13, 2022 Order Denying Motion to Amend Judgment: April 13, 2022 vi