No. 24-7247

Tamika Seay v. Department of Justice, et al.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-05-20
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: due-process fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment plain-error probable-cause substantive-rights
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the United States Government violated Petitioner's Substantive Rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, and whether the government's actions meet the criteria for Plain Error under FRCP Rule 52(b)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. What do the litigant and accused do when the state court and the appellant court says two different things? 2. Whether procedures the United States Government followed satisfy Due Process of Law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment before it deprived Petitioner of life, liberty and property without due process of law, accused her of crime, deprived her of the right of notice, trial by jury, an attorney, the right to be free from self-incrimination and unlawful seizure? 3. Whether the United States Government violated Petitioner ’s Substantive Rights and fail to conform to the “ Due Process Clause ” under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, Bill of Rights and Substantive Due Process to prevent the government ’s interference and unwarranted intrusion with fundamental rights including custody of her child and the right to trial by jury. 4. Whether error in this case meets the criteria of a “ Plain Error ” under FRCP Rule 52(b): the mistake must be clear, obvious, and affect the substantial rights of the Petitioner. 5. Did the state court effectively carry the decision of the Appellant Court(s) into effect? 6. Whether the United States Government had or has probable cause for the seizure of the Petitioners child? 2 7. Whether the United States Government had or has probable cause for the Conviction of the Petitioner? 8. Whether the state court served notice, summons and complaint upon Petitioner in this matter who judgment of conviction is entered against. V.

Docket Entries

2026-01-15
Case considered closed.
2025-10-06
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 27, 2025, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2025-06-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-06-20
Waiver of Federal Respondent of right to respond submitted.
2025-06-20
Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondent to respond filed.
2025-03-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2025)

Attorneys

Federal Respondent
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Moez Mansoor KabaHueston Hennigan LLP, Respondent
Federal Respondents
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent
Tamika Seay
Tamika Seay — Petitioner
Tamika Seay — Petitioner