No. 23-6929
Herve Wilmore, Jr. v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights district-court due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-procedure pre-filing-injunction standing suspension-clause
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2024-04-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court's pre-filing injunction violates the suspension clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the district court's pre-filing injunction violates the suspension clause of the United States Constitution since it prevents the Petitioner from litigating his: ineffective a assistance of counsel claim was misconstrued by the court? \ \ Herve Wilmore, jr. V. United States Case No.
Docket Entries
2024-04-15
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).
2024-03-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2024.
2024-03-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-02-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 8, 2024)
Attorneys
Herve Wilmore
Herve Wilmore Jr. — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent