No. 25-5378

Samuel Lee Smith, Jr. v. Mark H. Slimak

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2025-08-15
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: constitutional-violation due-process fifth-amendment fourteenth-amendment procedural-rights stalking-injunction
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)

Did the trial court commit reversible error 's dismissing the petition for an injunction to prevent Respondent from stalking? Did the court violate the procedural due process clause, enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution when it denied Petitioner relief without affording him a hearing in violation of the Petitioner 's due process right to notice, opportunity to be heard and the right to have a decision from an impartial decision-maker as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution? Did the officer violate the Petitioners 4th Amendment rights? Are the trial courts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § Section 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law? Did the judge commit an error by not disqualifying themselves?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the trial court commit reversible error in dismissing the petition for an injunction to prevent stalking, and did the court violate procedural due process rights by denying relief without a hearing?

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2025-09-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-23
Waiver of Mark H. Slimak of right to respond submitted.
2025-08-23
Waiver of right of respondent Mark H. Slimak to respond filed.
2025-05-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 15, 2025)

Attorneys

Mark H. Slimak
Rhea Pincus GrossmanRhea P. Grossman, P.A., Respondent
Samuel Lee Smith
Samuel Lee Smith Jr. — Petitioner