No. 23-6620

Bruce A. Quarles v. Joseph Terra, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Phoenix, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2024-01-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure constitutional-rights diligence-requirement due-process ex-post-facto federal-rules-of-civil-procedure rule-60 rule-60(d)(1) timely-filing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-03-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is an imposition of a diligence requirement upon a timely filed Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) motion a violation of the rule?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : A. IS AN IMPOSITION OF A DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT UPON A TIMELY FILED FEDERAL > ; RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(d)(1) MOTION A VIOLATION OF THE RULE? , ; Suggested Answer: Yes 7 oo Be DOES AN EX POST FACTO IMPOSITION OF A DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT UPON A TIMELY FILED RULE 60(d@)(1) MOTION AND DENYING THE MOTION BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE. : : . BEEN FILED SOONER WITHOUT PROVIDING PETITIONERS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AN EXPLANATION FOR.WHY THE MOTION WAS NOT FILED SOONER VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS : : CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION? — : . Suggested Answer: Yes ©

Docket Entries

2024-03-18
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2024-02-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024.
2024-02-15
Waiver of right of respondent Joseph Terra, Supt. SCI Phoenix, et al. to respond filed.
2023-12-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 29, 2024)

Attorneys

Bruce A. Quarles
Bruce A. Quarles — Petitioner
Joseph Terra, Supt. SCI Phoenix, et al.
Nancy WinkelmanDistrict Attorney's Office, Respondent