No. 23-6268

Clifford A. Gooden, III v. United States, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-12-15
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights first-amendment government-immunity judicial-activism judicial-immunity ku-klux-klan section-1983
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FirstAmendment DueProcess FourthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-02-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is the original scope and purpose of a section 1983 action to allow black citizens the right to sue racist government where it has been infiltrated by the Ku Klux Klan?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED | . 1. Is the original scope and purpose of a section 1983 action is to allow black citizens the right to sue racist government where it has been infiltrated by the Ku Klux Klan? 2. Is judicial immunity included in the original language of section 1983 drafting or ; its legislative history? | 3. Mr. Gooden do move this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2403(a) to call into question the unconstitutional judicial amendment to section 1983 statute regarding governmental immunities. Is jurisdiction proper in the United States Supreme Court? 4. Do the immunity laws illegally injected into section 1983 actions designed to protect government officials, act to interfere with a citizens First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances? 5. Can common-law judicial immunity, which is a product of legislation from the bench, be applied to section 1983 statute without appropriate statutory . amendment? 6. Is the slow erosion of the constitution and the people’s rights an obvious indication of the stealthy infiltration into government by the Ku Klux Klan to eventually “overthrow the reconstruction laws and the people and state | government they were designed to protect”? 7. Is common-law judicial immunity injected into section 1983 statutory application the creation of Judicial Activism? i .

Docket Entries

2024-02-20
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.
2024-01-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-01-06
Waiver of right of respondent United States, et. al. to respond filed.
2023-09-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 16, 2024)

Attorneys

Clifford A. Gooden
Clifford A. Gooden III — Petitioner
Clifford A. Gooden III — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
United States, et. al.
Darrel MullinsIowas Dept. of Justice, Respondent
Darrel MullinsIowas Dept. of Justice, Respondent