No. 23-5695
Stephen Michael Michuda v. Minnesota
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-violation due-process effective-assistance-of-counsel indigent-defendants indigent-rights ineffective-assistance procedural-bar public-defender public-defenders time-bar
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-11-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is it unconstitutional for the State of Minnesota to block all avenues for indigent defendants against public defenders?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is it unconstitutional for the State of Minnesota to block all avenues for indigent against public defenders? 2. Is it unconstitutional for the State of Minnesota to time-bar and/or procedurally-bar indigent parties that were denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and/or review stages? ,
Docket Entries
2023-11-13
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari 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).
2023-10-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2023.
2023-10-23
Waiver of right of respondent Minnesota to respond filed.
2023-09-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 2, 2023)
Attorneys
Minnesota
Adam Edward Petras — Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Respondent
Stephen Michuda
Stephen M. Michuda — Petitioner