No. 24-6321

Celeste Ryan v. Jeff Timmerman, et al.

Lower Court: Washington
Docketed: 2025-01-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights due-process equal-protection first-amendment judicial-discretion sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2025-03-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the exercise of judicial discretion violate constitutional guarantees such as due process, equal protection, impartiality, and the right to a jury trial?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QlDoes the exercise of judicial discretion violate constitutional guarantees such as due process, equal protection, impartiality, and the right to a jury trial? Q2Does enforcing non-legislative private procedural rules under the guise of inherent authority and Judicial discretion violate First Amendment protections? Q3 Does punishing a Party using claimed inherent judicial powers (Judicial Discretion), for conduct of third parties constitute an unconstitutional violation of Free speech protections? Q4 Does Judicial altering of witness testimony to comply with discretionary pre trial judicial orders that limit the scope of petitioner ’s triable issues violate First Amendment rights? Q5Does the use of summary judgment infringe upon the Sixth Amendment, effectively stripping litigants of their constitutional right to a fair jury trial by bypassing the jury ’s role in fact-finding, imposing unfair and premature procedural burdens on litigants, and therefore making the process prone to judicial overreach? Q6Did The Court Abuse It's Discretion By Granting Summary Judgment? Q7Did Trial Court Deny Plaintiffs Constitutional Rights? ii Q8Are public court fees generally an unconstitutional barrier to justice, violating due process, equal protection, and Sixth Amendment rights? Q9* Do financial barriers created by court-mandated prerequisites in the litigation process conflict with due process guarantees? QIO Does requiring expert testimony as a prerequisite for proceeding on certain claims result in an undue burden that constitutes an unconstitutional barrier to fair trial rights under due process protections? QllIs review and remand warranted by this court when constitutional rights were compromised in the procedural phase, thus preventing a trial on the merits?

Docket Entries

2025-03-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-03-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-01-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 18, 2025)

Attorneys

Celeste Ryan
Celeste Ryan — Petitioner