No. 23-6864

In Re Solomon Roberts

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-02-29
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Relisted (2)IFP
Tags: brady-violation civil-procedure constitutional-rights due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance parole-revocation probation-revocation prosecutorial-misconduct standing
Latest Conference: 2024-05-30 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Due Process Clause requires a hearing before revoking probation

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | tohethec Dut Process Required a Hearing . On Ne Anata OFFin ses that Form tht . ; basis for Violahon Proc 45 Probsetion a PEPE PrbRng Revake de a oe an ae Line dnec Peds honLcs Fsdiretl Peotectid Right 4 * * od +o Proce aural Ard โ€œ@ubs ten tue Dve Procss$ Wier VieletdA Uthuere Asch Prosecube indantrona thy Aitertd the ideal ficeton bys dencs. lay Converting ve ukdniss Like ald ant tdinds Fy ms As Pec Peteeter Lindo usidness that ould. Ana uw CantraNvink oF My rane to Course tubsthee the SuPeeme cy Clause 2h.8.c. ยง 13433) tomPanints of He Fiedy And Four tseendh, . Amindaments of the Fede uf Consttutan , ory acriusm โ€” ineNudes > tas he 4, of FLOoRTSA Oo . LISTOF PARTIES . [ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all

Docket Entries

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.
2024-04-10
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2024-03-25
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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).
2024-03-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/22/2024.
2022-10-07

Attorneys

Solomon Roberts
Solomon Roberts — Petitioner
Solomon Roberts — Petitioner