No. 23-7127

Martin Akerman v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2024-04-03
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-1254 28-usc-1257 administrative-law constitutional-mandate federal-authority federal-circuit federal-jurisdiction habeas-corpus interlocutory-appeal merit-systems-protection-board state-authority
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2024-06-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Jurisdiction over habeas corpus decisions from the federal circuit

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Jurisdiction Over Habeas Corpus Decisions from the Federal Circuit: Does jurisdiction over habeas corpus decisions originating within the administrative. . state, particularly those adjudicated by the Federal Circuit, reside under federal : authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), or state authority as per 28 U.S.C. § . 1257(a)? ; : : , , 2. Implications of Respondent Designation in Habeas Corpus Cases: Given the stipulations of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the importance of correctly naming respondents in habeas corpus cases, what are the jurisdictional and procedural ; implications of designating only the Merit Systems Protection Board as the respondent in cases involving military contexts and issues of federal and judicial immunity? 3. Constitutional Mandate for Habeas Corpus Challenges: Is it incumbent upon a judicial body, under the Constitution, to permit challenges to “custody under or by the color of the authority of the United States, or committed for trial before some court thereof,” through habeas corpus petitions? 4. Spoliation in the Context of Interlocutory Appeal and the Brady Rule: Within the realm of federal administrative law, specifically concerning quasi-judicial bodies like the Merit Systems Protection Board, what are the legal implications -of spoliation of evidence in relation to interlocutory appeals and the obligations of disclosure as mandated by the Brady rule? e

Docket Entries

2024-06-24
Rehearing DENIED.
2024-06-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
2024-05-29
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2024-05-28
Petition DENIED.
2024-05-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024.
2024-05-01
Waiver of right of respondent Merit Systems Protection Board to respond filed.
2024-02-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 3, 2024)
2023-12-15
Application (23A539) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until March 29, 2024.
2023-12-09
Application (23A539) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 18, 2024 to March 29, 2024, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Martin Akerman
Martin Akerman — Petitioner
Martin Akerman — Petitioner
Merit Systems Protection Board
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent