Spuck v. Ammerman Fredric

Supreme Court

Spuck v. Ammerman Fredric

181 L. Ed. 2d 476, 132 S. Ct. 781, 565 U.S. 1052, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8380, 80 U.S.L.W. 3319

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided November 28, 2011·No. No. 11-6806·Published

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 Third 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 the petition is 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).

[477]*477Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 358.

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 Third 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 the petition is 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).

[477]*477Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 358.

Spuck v. Ammerman Fredric, 181 L. Ed. 2d 476, 132 S. Ct. 781, 565 U.S. 1052, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 8380, 80 U.S.L.W. 3319 (U.S. 2011).

Pincite

181 L. Ed. 2d 476 (Spuck v. Ammerman Fredric) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related