Bishop v. Grievance Committee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Supreme Court

Bishop v. Grievance Committee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

178 L. Ed. 2d 282, 131 S. Ct. 499, 562 U.S. 957, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7878, 79 U.S.L.W. 3227

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 12, 2010

DocketNo. 10-5710

StatusPublished

This text of 178 L. Ed. 2d 282 (Bishop v. Grievance Committee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bishop v. Grievance Committee for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 178 L. Ed. 2d 282, 131 S. Ct. 499, 562 U.S. 957, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7878, 79 U.S.L.W. 3227 (U.S. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 246.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 246.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 L. Ed. 2d 282, 131 S. Ct. 499, 562 U.S. 957, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7878, 79 U.S.L.W. 3227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-grievance-committee-for-the-united-states-district-court-for-the-scotus-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack