Home/Supreme Court/Dydzak v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.

Dydzak v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.

134 S. Ct. 988, 187 L. Ed. 2d 768, 571 U.S. 1120, 82 U.S.L.W. 3407, 2014 WL 102996, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 320
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 13, 2014
DocketNo. 13–7046.
StatusPublished

This text of 134 S. Ct. 988 (Dydzak v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.) 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
Dydzak v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 134 S. Ct. 988, 187 L. Ed. 2d 768, 571 U.S. 1120, 82 U.S.L.W. 3407, 2014 WL 102996, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 320 (U.S. 2014).

Opinion

Case below, 509 Fed.Appx. 653.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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 ).

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

Related

Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals
506 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 S. Ct. 988, 187 L. Ed. 2d 768, 571 U.S. 1120, 82 U.S.L.W. 3407, 2014 WL 102996, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dydzak-v-us-dist-court-for-the-cent-dist-of-cal-scotus-2014.