No. 25-600

John Paul Beaudoin, Sr. v. Charles D. Baker, et al.

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2025-11-24
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: case-dismissal civil-rights court-access due-process pleading-standards standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2026-01-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing this case on standing and pleading standards? Whether meritorious cases filed in U.S. Courts are habitually dismissed under heightened Fed. R. Civ. P. doctrines in violation of Constitutional rights to access the courts for dispute resolution? Whether decisions under Fed. R. Civ. P. are effectively equitable and should be scrutinized as such?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

In the past 40 years, case dismissals increased in frequency and now occur earlier in the litigation process. In 1986, the standard to survive summary judgment in the discovery phase was heightened in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby (1986) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986), which became the two most cited cases in U.S. history. In Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife (1992), this Court resolved disparities among the Circuit Courts by defining a 3-prong test for “standing, ” used to dismiss cases in the pleading stage. In 2007 and 2009, the pleading “plausibility ” standard was height ened via Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), newly the most cited two cases in U.S. history by a large margin in only 16 years and used almost exclusively to dismiss cases after the initial complaint. In 2020, an overwhelming workload event besieged U.S. Courts when 414,469 civil cases were filed, 180,538 (62%) more than expected. The over whelming workload manifested habitual dismissals of meritorious cases, thus violating plaintiffs ’ rights to due process, petition for redress, and access to courts for dispute resolution. Dismissals of meritorious cases en masse leave disputes unresolved, which, in turn, causes a breakdown of civil society. The Question Presented is: Whether the lower court erred in dismissing this case on standing and pleading standards? Whether meritorious cases filed in U.S. Courts are habitually dismissed under heightened Fed. R. Civ. P. doctrines in violation of Constitutional rights to access the courts for dispute resolution? Whether decisions under Fed. R. Civ. P. are effectively equitable and should be scrutinized as such?

Docket Entries

2026-01-12
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-11-25
Waiver of Charles Baker, et al. of right to respond submitted.
2025-11-25
Waiver of right of respondent Charles Baker, et al. to respond filed.
2025-11-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 24, 2025)

Attorneys

Charles Baker, et al.
Grace Clayton GohlkeOffice of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Respondent
Grace Clayton GohlkeOffice of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Respondent
John Beaudoin
John Paul Beaudoin Sr. — Petitioner
John Paul Beaudoin Sr. — Petitioner