No. 25-6098

Elston Bone v. Massachusetts, et al.

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2025-11-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 42-usc-1983 constitutional-challenge intermediate-scrutiny new-york-rifle-bruen state-court-review subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-12-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Federal District Court have subject matter jurisdiction over a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action challenging a state court conviction's constitutionality under the two-step framework of History and Intermediate Scrutiny after Bruen

Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the Federal District Court have subject matter jurisdiction, over a Plaintiff who brings a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, and presents an independent claim challenging the constitutionality a statute or rule governing the decision under which he was convicted in state court; the two step framework of History and Intermediate Scrutiny. The same two step framework of History and Intermediate Scrutiny the United States Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen 597 U.S. 1 (2022), even though the same question was earlier aired in state court. i

Docket Entries

2025-12-08
Petition DENIED.
2025-11-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
2025-11-17
Waiver of Massachusetts, et al. of right to respond submitted.
2025-11-17
Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts, et al. to respond filed.
2025-10-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 15, 2025)

Attorneys

Elston Bone
Elston Bone — Petitioner
Elston Bone — Petitioner
Massachusetts, et al.
Daniel Jordan RubenMassachusetts Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Daniel Jordan RubenMassachusetts Attorney General's Office, Respondent