No. 23-5128
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 6th-circuit abuse-of-discretion appellate-review circuit-court federal-rules-of-civil-procedure habeas-corpus judicial-discretion mandamus motion-denial rule-60b section-2255
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Securities JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by refusing to answer Stinson's § 2255 motion?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by refusing to answer Stinson’s § 2255 motion? 2. Did the United States District Court abuse its discretion by denying Stinson’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2023-08-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-07-13
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 17, 2023)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent