No. 24-5964

In Re Daniel E. Hall

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-11-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: fraud-upon-court judicial-procedure local-rule-83.1 mandamus rule-60 writ-of-certiorari
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2025-03-28 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Supreme Court will address fraud upon the court, procedural requirements under Local Rule 83.1(a), voiding proceedings under Rule 60, and available remedies

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : es ¢ QUESTIONS 1. "How does the Supreme Court define and address instances of fraud upon the court, the required duty to apply Local Rule 83.1(a), the required procedure of voiding proceedings under Rule 60(b)(4) or (6) and Rule 60(d) and what remedies are available to ensure justice is served when such fraud is identified?" 2. "What are the implications of the Supreme Court’s decisions when the required procedure of holding a hearing under Rule 201(e) are not followed, and how does this impact the fairness and consistency of judicial outcomes?" 3. "Under what circumstances does the Supreme Court consider issuing a writ of mandamus to compel lower courts or public officials to act upon the required procedure of noticing indisputable material facts under Rule 201(b), and what standards must be met to justify such extraordinary relief?" 4. "Under what circumstances may the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel a lower court to accept jurisdiction, the required application of notice pleading requirements under Rule 8(a)(2), statutory entitlements proscribed in § 1981 and the state actor doctrine and what are the broader implications for access to justice in such cases?" 5. "What standards does the Supreme Court apply when considering a writ of mandamus to compel a judge to recuse themselves as proscribed in 28 U.S.C. § 455 and § 144, and how does this impact the integrity of judicial proceedings?" , 6. "Should the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the lower court to conduct a hearing on the constitutionality of Section § 230, given that the plaintiff: has sufficiently alleged potential violations of constitutional rights and the lower court has not yet addressed these claims?" il.

Docket Entries

2025-03-31
Rehearing DENIED.
2025-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/28/2025.
2025-02-14
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2025-01-21
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
2024-12-17
Waiver of X Corp. of right to respond submitted.
2024-12-17
Waiver of right of respondent X Corp. to respond filed.
2024-11-07
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 13, 2024)

Attorneys

Daniel E. Hall
Daniel E. Hall — Petitioner
Daniel E. Hall — Petitioner
X Corp.
Kenneth Michael Trujillo-JamisonWillenken LLP, Respondent
Kenneth Michael Trujillo-JamisonWillenken LLP, Respondent