No. 23-6852

Elisha L. Gresham v. Martin J. O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2024-02-28
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: ada-compliance administrative-law appeals civil-procedure disability-law federal-courts jurisdiction social-security standing venue
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2024-05-30 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Eleventh Circuit Court have legal jurisdiction to hear and rule on this case?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented: (A) Did the Eleventh Circuit Court have legal jurisdiction to hear and rule on my case since this case did not originate in Florida? {Established by Congress in 1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has jurisdiction over cases originating in the states of Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The circuit includes nine district courts with each state divided into Northem, Middle and Southern Districts} (B) Currently, should my case be heard by the Florida Supreme Court since fam how a citizen of Florida? (C) If people can’t speak English, do they meet all requirements to be disabled? (D} Why didn’t the Circuit Court Clerks allow for the Judges to review the appeal for a Rehearing? (E) Are the federal laws, rules and requirements for disability including ADA, recognized and adhered to in the US and the State of Florida? (F) Are the AL!’s and Courts allowed to intentionafly misrepresent, misquote and misapply laws? (G) Are the ALI’s and courts allowed to intentionally disregard/omit relevant and pertinent evidence submitted by the appellant? {H) Why aren’t the lower Courts lawfully and correctly applying the federal disability laws/rules stated above (# 4) to the case for the appellant? . (I) Are the appellees intentionally legally atlowed to alter a Judge’s decision? (J) Are the Appeilant’s treating medical professionats considered Medical Experts? {K) Can the US Supreme Court apply the federal laws and rules for disabled persons and for person under the ADA (Americans With Disability Act of 2008, As Amended) in accordance to, and as they are federally described and amended? (L) Will the US Supreme Court overturn any prior rulings regarding this case, should they find, in accordance to federal disability laws for persons with combined disabilities, the rn 6 appellant should be legally and rightfully granted/entitled to have received her social security disability benefits retro May 20, 2015 through December 31, 2020? ; {M) Is it required by law for the ALI and the lower courts to disclose their.claims of proof of “preponderance evidence” as opposed to it just being stated within their written decisions? RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED January 5, 2024 Elisha L. Gresham, Pro Se, 1612 Pine Ridge Drive Davenport, FL 33896 Telephone: (302) 613-9057 Email: foboozi2@yahoo.com tte ae TTT er 7 UST OF PARTIES Commissioner of Social Security Respondent Party RELATED CASES Delaware Department of Labor Social Security Appeals Counsel & Administration : Middle District Court Of Florida, Tampa Division US Court Of Appeals For The Eleventh Circuit Court i i _ hs STs Sr o . INTERESTED PARTIES There are no parties to this proceeding other than those named in the caption of this case. 8 . : ! Pagei . co _

Docket Entries

2024-09-12
Case considered closed.
2024-06-11
Application (23A990) denied by Justice Thomas.
2024-06-04
Application (23A990) for a further extension of time within which to comply with the order of April 22, 2024, submitted to Justice Thomas.
2024-06-03
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2024-05-14
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2024.
2024-05-07
Application (23A990) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 12, 2024.
2024-04-29
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2024-04-29
Application (23A990) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of April 22, 2024, submitted to Justice Thomas.
2024-04-22
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until May 13, 2024, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2024-04-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/19/2024.
2024-03-29
Waiver of right of respondent Commissioner of Social Security to respond filed.
2024-01-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 29, 2024)

Attorneys

Commissioner of Social Security
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elisha L. Gresham
Elisha L. Gresham — Petitioner
Elisha L. Gresham — Petitioner