No. 24-7317

Laurack D. Bray v. Matthew Scott Kenefick, Individually and as Partner in Jeffers Mangels, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-05-29
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: court-of-appeals judicial-bias legal-procedure race-discrimination section-1981 summary-reversal
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is it reversible error for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to treat opposing parties differently based on race, and are false statements by a federal district judge treated the same as litigants' false statements?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. IS IT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO TREAT OPPOSING PARTIES (ONE A BLACK MALE ATTORNEY AND THE OTHER A WHITE MALE ATTORNEY ) DIFFERENTLY IN REACHING ITS DECISION IN THE CASE? 2. ARE FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE TREATED THE SAME AS FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY LITIGANTS DURING THE COURSE OF LITIGATION? 3. IS THE CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT TO BRING A 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981 CLAIM, AS ESPOUSED IN DOMINO'S PIZZA, STILL GOOD LAW FOR NON-CONTRACT sec. 1981 CLAIMS? 4. CAN A CASE LEGALLY BE DEEMED FRIVOLOUS WHERE THERE IS A PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL TO BE DECIDED ?

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-05-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 30, 2025)

Attorneys

Laurack Bray
Laurack D. Bray — Petitioner