Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About foolish

  • Rank
    Diamond Contributor

Recent Profile Visitors

2,710 profile views
  1. For the record, the delay can be a sua sponte action, here's a quotation; Practice Notes to Rule 35 HEARING OR REHEARING EN BANC. The court may sua sponte order that an appeal be initially heard or be reheard en banc. The panel or a judge on the panel that is considering a case may at any time request the active judges of the court to hear or rehear the case en banc with or without further briefs or argument by counsel. Quite a few circuits have this in the practice notes, I am not saying that's what's happening in my case at all, but this practice does not slam the door shut to the possibility since it the practice notes. Again I don't believe that's happening here. Thanks
  2. Took it out of context, it was a legitimate question, I was confused in, a few answers from others than myself, basically puts the mind at ease as best as it can. Thus therapy.
  3. Of course I don't think the court would drop everything that they are doing that' thought is the farthest from my mind. I posted the question just to bounce off ideas from the top of my head, it seems more for self therapy than anything else, appreciate the input from those who volunteered their perspective. THANKS.
  4. Its not that I don't appreciate your replies but I can't understand why you keep asking the same question "after 1,000 post here" and over literally dozens of dozens of the same answers that I give you over the years, I am pro se, and have been for over 18years I was set up to lose my case from day one, I have come along ways from where I was in the first days to now, if I jealously guarded the jurisdiction then, what makes you think i am going to be clumsy and state the jurisdiction now. Particularly the questions I ask are general questions where the rules of court or cases laws are basically based on the same principal, I have gotten far, I just need a hint and I and do the rest of the research with what the tools I have at my disposal. Hopefully if you decide to ask the same question in the future you remember my countless of replies you won't get a jurisdiction out of me or I'll just give you a any circuit that coincides with the circuit I am at.
  5. What I meant was that the motion is basically a withdrawal of further review Yes this a federal court of appeals court I know its uncommon for a court panel to sua sponte consider the appeal for rehearing or rehearing en banc But that's a thought, I don't see any other reason except for that maybe the workload might cause the delay. Since neither party is seeks further review and the government filed a non-opposition response to expedited treatment of the mandate.
  6. Isn't a motion requesting the court to expedite execution of mandate because neither party will pursue rehearing nor rehearing en banc basically withdrawal of an appeal, what is their for a court to feel? I don't want to and cant afford to wait the 60 days for the mandate to issue, that's why I filed the motion to expedite which non-opposition was met. Let me ask this even though neither party will be filing petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc, can the court sua sponte reconsider or cast the case for en banc consideration?
  7. I recently filed a motion for an appellate court to expedite execution of mandate in my case, the court instructed the appellee's to respond, appellees responded by ''not opposing'' the motion to expedite issuance of mandate. My question is two part question (1) How long does it take for the court to execute mandate since no rehearing, or rehearing en banc will be sought by either party (2) what could be the delay in the mandate issuing normally the mandate would issue that same day or the next day, its been a week since appellee's filed their non-opposition response
  8. Thank's you reminded that I completely forgot, about the 14 day for rehearing or en banc. Thanks
  9. You have to excuse me I accidiently omitted the the word "not" seeking certiorari to SCOTUS, the judgment affirmed was a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the government sought to have decision on different ground of "failure to state claim". The issues are federal, I just want to know if I have to wait for the mandate, basically the mandate issues on the 91st day from an appellate court when no petition is filed at the SCOTUS.
  10. I have jurisdictional question. A court of appeals affirmed a lowers decision recently I believe favorably to me under the circumstances. I filed a notice that I will be seeking certiorari to the SCOTUS and that mandate issue. My question is do i have to wait for the mandate order to issue or can I refile an identical or similar complaint with the same court before mandate issues, so I won't waste any valuable time?
  11. I understand both the meaning of per curiam and sua sponte what throws me off is that it signed by the Clerk and not a judge on behalf of the other judges. Can the court issue the order and the Clerk sign it? which would explain the wordings that caught me off guard and is festering. Or is there another explanation that I have am not aware of?
  12. On appeal, how can I tell when a Court issues an order and the Clerk of the Court does? I understand the Clerk of the Court can dispense with certain procedural motions that are not dispositive. However what throws me off is the wording of the orders like for example "per curiam" and "sua sponte", when these words are used in the order I get the impression its single judge or a panel of judges.
  13. Strictly research, my question is there an exception to the rule of 28 US.C 1491(a)(1) that a claim sounding in tort can't be maintained the court of federal claims? The reason I ask is because I believe I found an exception to the rule see e.g., Awad v. United States, 301 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("If an action arises `primarily from a contractual undertaking,' jurisdiction lies in the [Court of Federal Claims] `regardless of the fact that the loss resulted from the negligent manner in which defendant performed its contract.'" (quoting San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957, 960 (Fed. Cir. 1989))).(See internal citations) Do I understand that if the injured party is able to sufficiently prove that injuries they sustained would have not occurred or could not occur except through breach of contract then they could then a tort claim can be maintained becuase the injuries are attributtable to the breach? or claims sounding in tort?
  14. The reason why I linked both questions is because I thought the rule governed the timing of the filings whether its motions or briefs unless the court extends or shortens it, in my limited experience when the court sets a time for a motion or brief to be filed and its filed early that filing date triggers the amount of time set by the court for the response to be filed. The reason I asked is because if that was the case that the appellees missed the filing deadline of the opening brief. Therefore my concern is that when it files its response to the supplemental is does not exceed the scope of the issues raised in the supplemental brief or address the issues of the opening brief. That's why I combined the timing question with the scope of the supplemental question. I read Sharp v. Johnson, 669 F.3d 144, 153, n13, which the timing to becomes more important.
  15. I have a question concerning being granted permission to file supplemental brief after the opening brief has been filed and a filing deadline that a court imposes. I believe I understand that the filing deadline of filing briefs and motions is normally governed by FRAP 27(3)(A) the 10 day filing deadline unless the court extends it or shortens it. Am I correct? Is so, My question is whether can appellee's address issues in their response to the supplement that It didn't bother filing a response to the opening brief. In other words are appellees only allowed to address issues raised in the supplement and not in the opening brief? The next question goes for example the court sets a filing deadline of 30 days from today April 08, 2019 to file the opening brief on May 08, 2019 and the appellee's response brief is set for June 08, 2019. But the appellant files the opening brief before the May 08, filing deadline. Is appellee's filing deadline triggered by appellant's early filing? In other-words is filing deadline moved to when appellant' files the opening brief?
  • Create New...