Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Jeremy Bruns, et ux. v. Rhonda Bryant, et al.
Paid petition · Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA16-699 · judgment February 7, 2017
Certiorari denied · March 26, 2018
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
- According to the explicit and objective instructions in Canon 3D of the North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct (NCJCC), a potentially disqualified judge by the terms of Canon 3C, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, is permitted to seek a waiver for his disqualification if he discloses on the record the bases for his potential disqualification, and if based on such disclosure, all of the parties and lawyers on behalf of their clients ("pro se parties shall be considered lawyers") independently of the judge's participation sign a written agreement that the judge's bases for potential disqualification are immaterial or insubstantial, this agreement "shall" be incorporated into the record of the proceeding, and only then the judge is no longer disqualified and may participate in the proceeding. At our first hearing 25 January 2016 after filing our Complaint, the Trial Court (TC) judge disclosed some but not all of the bases for his potential disqualification, and there was no effort made by any party to create or consider a written agreement as the NCJCC requires; ergo, this mandatory jurisdiction-granting device is not in the Record because it doesn't exist. Did the TC judge violate his affirmative, non-discretionary duty prescribed in Canon 3D's mandate by hearing our case and issuing dismissal orders against us in all absence of jurisdiction, consequently rendering orders that are Void ab initio, thereby unreasonably violating our Commerce Clause, First Amendment Redress, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process, Equal Protection, and Property rights, thus piercing his judicial immunity and constituting a fundamental structural error in the civil context where prejudice and harm is presumed? (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jenny Bruns
For respondent
Michael Duane Jones
Hedrick Eatman Gardner & Kincheloe
Proceedings
- May 14 2018Rehearing DENIED.
- Apr 24 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/10/2018.
- Apr 19 2018Petition for Rehearing filed.
- Mar 26 2018Petition DENIED.
- Mar 08 2018Reply of petitioners Jeremy Bruns, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 07 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/23/2018.
- Feb 20 2018Brief of respondent United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in opposition filed.
- Feb 08 2018Waiver of right of respondent Rhonda Bryant, Dalton Bryant, Sr.; Dalton Bryant, Jr. to respond filed.
- Jan 11 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 22, 2018)
- Dec 07 2017Application (17A619) granted by The Chief Justice to file petition for a writ of certiorari in excess of the word limits. The petition for a writ of certiorari may not exceed 27,000 words.
- Dec 06 2017Application (17A619) to file petition for a writ of certiorari in excess of the word limits, submitted to The Chief Justice.
- Nov 24 2017Application (17A573) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 12, 2018.
- Nov 14 2017Application (17A573) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 15, 2017 to January 14, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.