JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

Post Reply
User avatar
realist
Posts: 34769
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#1

Post by realist » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:23 pm

I can't find a thread for this case, one of the many Judd cases. I *thought* we had a Judd v The World or something like that, but did not find it.





Apparently the the 8th Circuit isn’t putting up with his shit anymore …..











Judd v. Secretary of State of Arkansas et al





Assigned to: Honorable P. K. Holmes, III


Case in other court:


8th Circuit Court of Appeals, 11-03008


8th Circuit Court of Appeals, 12-03097





Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act





Date Filed: 06/07/2011


Date Terminated: 09/06/2011


Jury Demand: None


Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other


Jurisdiction: Federal Question





[highlight]08/27/2012 23


MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Relief from Judgment by Keith Russell Judd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Motion)(cap) (Entered: 08/27/2012) [Birther motion][/highlight]





[highlight]08/31/2012 TEXT ONLY ORDER denying 23 Motion for Leave to File, as the proposed motion does not allege that movant is in imminent danger of serious physical injury, is procedurally improper, and substantively without merit. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on August 31, 2012. (jlg) (Entered: 08/31/2012)[/highlight]





09/04/2012 24


NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Text Only Order on Motion for Leave to File entered 8/31/12, by Keith Russell Judd. (cc via U.S. Postal Service: Keith Russell Judd, Defendants were not served with process) (cap) (Entered: 09/05/2012)





09/05/2012 25


APPEAL NOTICE to Pro Se Party re 24 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Russell Judd. (cap) (Entered: 09/05/2012)





09/05/2012 26


NOA SUPPLEMENT FORM re 24 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Russell Judd. (cap) (Entered: 09/05/2012)





09/05/2012 27


USCA Case Number 12-3097, 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for 24 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Russell Judd ; USCA requests any portions/documents not available electronically to be sent within 10 days. (no documents to send) (cnn) (Entered: 09/05/2012)





09/05/2012 28


ORDER of USCA as to 24 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Russell Judd; Appellant direct to pay the $455.00 filing fee by 10/5/12; failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. (cnn) (Entered: 09/05/2012)





10/10/2012


TEXT ONLY NOTICE TO USCA of subsequent case activity re USCA No. 12-3097. Related entry(s): 28 USCA Order. Deadline for receipt of filing fee has passed and payment has not been received in Clerk's Office. (cap) (Entered: 10/10/2012)





10/16/2012 29


SHOW CAUSE ORDER of USCA as to 24 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Russell Judd, directing appellant to show cause within 14 days of date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (cap) (Entered: 10/16/2012)





11/14/2012 30


MANDATE of USCA dismissing appeal for failure to prosecute re district court decision as to 24 Notice of Appeal filed by Keith Russell Judd. The full $455.00 appellate filing and docketing fees are assessed against the appellant. The court remands the collection of those fees to the district court. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Judgment)(cap) (Entered: 11/14/2012)





11/20/2012 31


[highlight] CLERK'S ORDER re PLRA Fee directing FCI-Texarkana to collect from petitioner's prison account monthly payments in amount equal to 20% of preceding month's income credited to account until $ 455.00 filing fee is paid in full (cnn) (Entered: 11/20/2012)[/highlight]
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#2

Post by BillTheCat » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:41 pm

Prison funds from Judd? That's going to add up to a lot of cigarettes.
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

Roboe
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:59 am

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#3

Post by Roboe » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:42 pm

At the rate he's going, he'll probably end up being booked for 240% of his monthly income...

Msottement
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:24 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#4

Post by Msottement » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:48 pm

Judd v. Secretary of State of Arkansas et al








[highlight]08/27/2012 23


MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Relief from Judgment by Keith Russell Judd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Motion)(cap) (Entered: 08/27/2012) [Birther motion][/highlight]


Did the docket actually say "Birther Motion?"





:shock:

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#5

Post by Joseph Robidoux III » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:48 pm

I thought incarcerated litigants regularly request in forma pauperis . Was such a request made to the court and denied?




Edit: Note the 3rd USDC Judge confirmed during the 112th Congress


3. Paul K. Holmes, III, WD Arkansas February 7, 2011 (vote: 95-0)


[/break1]judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/112thCongress.cfm]http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... ngress.cfm

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#6

Post by bob » Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:51 pm

I thought incarcerated litigants regularly request in forma pauperis . Was such a request made to the court and denied?I would assume so. Incarcerated litigants do regularly request IFF status. But the district court has a gatekeeping function: If the judge thinks it is a loser of a suit/filed in bad faith, it can deny IFF status on that basis. (See [/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1915]28 U.S.C. sec. 1915.)





There is no free ticket to clogging the courts.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34769
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#7

Post by realist » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:41 pm

Judd v. Secretary of State of Arkansas et al








[highlight]08/27/2012 23


MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Relief from Judgment by Keith Russell Judd. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Motion)(cap) (Entered: 08/27/2012) [Birther motion][/highlight]


Did the docket actually say "Birther Motion?"





:shock:No. I put that in brackets, highlighted and bolded in red and outside the docket entry parens to indicate that it was a separate comment.





Sorry if you were misled. :(
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
ProudObot
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:46 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#8

Post by ProudObot » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:42 am

I thought incarcerated litigants regularly request in forma pauperis . Was such a request made to the court and denied?I would assume so. Incarcerated litigants do regularly request IFF status. But the district court has a gatekeeping function: If the judge thinks it is a loser of a suit/filed in bad faith, it can deny IFF status on that basis. (See [/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1915]28 U.S.C. sec. 1915.)





There is no free ticket to clogging the courts.Since Orly has been clogging the courts for four years, am I correct in assuming that the 'free ticket' referred to only refers to incarcerated litigants?

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

JUDD v SECRETARY OF STATE OF ARKANSAS

#9

Post by A Legal Lohengrin » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:05 am

I thought incarcerated litigants regularly request in forma pauperis . Was such a request made to the court and denied?I would assume so. Incarcerated litigants do regularly request IFF status. But the district court has a gatekeeping function: If the judge thinks it is a loser of a suit/filed in bad faith, it can deny IFF status on that basis. (See [/break1]law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1915]28 U.S.C. sec. 1915.)





There is no free ticket to clogging the courts.Since Orly has been clogging the courts for four years, am I correct in assuming that the 'free ticket' referred to only refers to incarcerated litigants?Orly generally pays her filing fees.

Post Reply

Return to “Eligibility Lawsuits”