Curto v. Smith

Supreme Court

Curto v. Smith

181 L. Ed. 2d 475, 132 S. Ct. 767, 565 U.S. 1051, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8338, 80 U.S.L.W. 3318

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 28, 2011

DocketNo. 11-6476

StatusPublished

This text of 181 L. Ed. 2d 475 (Curto v. Smith) 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

Curto v. Smith, 181 L. Ed. 2d 475, 132 S. Ct. 767, 565 U.S. 1051, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8338, 80 U.S.L.W. 3318 (U.S. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari 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). Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

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 pau-peris denied, and petition for writ of cer-tiorari 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). Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 L. Ed. 2d 475, 132 S. Ct. 767, 565 U.S. 1051, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8338, 80 U.S.L.W. 3318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curto-v-smith-scotus-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack