Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Michael Hucul v. Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-55192 · judgment November 20, 2017

Certiorari denied · June 11, 2018

Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

Does the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bar the District Court's review of Petitioner's Complaint to determine if divorced or separated Parents with joint custody of their child who provide a home, medical insurance, food, clothing and access to education for their child and do not receive Government assistance such as ADFC or TANF, are to be considered "absent", "non-custodial" Parents for the purposes of child support payments under Section of Title IV of the Social Security Act? (42 U.S.C. §651-670) Does the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine bar the District Court's review of Petitioner's Complaint due to injuries that were independent from the state-court judgments made by Defendants who were nonparties to the state-court judgements; to determine if these state-court judgments were procured by fraud, unjust enrichment, misrepresentations and other improper means, and for declaratory and injunctive relief from the injuries brought on by the threat of future unconstitutional enforcement actions of Federal regulations, State laws and customs, and when Petitioners are denied their civil rights and equal rights in the State of California Courts and to remove these proceedings to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, and as a class action under 28 U.S.C. § 1453?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Michael Hucul

For respondent
Eric J. Bakewell
Venable LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

Jun 11 2018
Petition DENIED.
May 22 2018
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/7/2018.
May 14 2018
Waiver of right of respondents Department of Health and Human Services, et al. to respond filed.
May 14 2018
Waiver of right of respondents The Honorable Mike Bishop, U.S. Representative for the 8th congressional district of Michigan; The Honorable Darrell Issa, U.S. Representative for the 49th congressional district of California to respond filed.
May 14 2018
Waiver of right of respondents American Bar Association and Paulette Brown to respond filed.
May 10 2018
Waiver of right of respondents State of Michigan and Michigan Governor Richard Snyder to respond filed.
May 10 2018
Waiver of right of respondents Law and Mediation Firm of Klueck & Hoppes, APC, Garrison Klueck, Traci Hoppes, Jeff Miller to respond filed.
May 03 2018
Waiver of right of respondents Jeremy A. Martin, Esq. and Law Office of Jeremy Martin, APC to respond filed.
Apr 30 2018
Waiver of right of respondents County of Ingham; State Bar of Michigan; Honorable R. George Economy to respond filed.
Apr 23 2018
Waiver of right of respondents Honorable Michael D. Washington, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to respond filed.
Apr 20 2018
Waiver of right of respondents Charles M. Kronzek; Kronzek & Cronkright, PLLC to respond filed.
Apr 18 2018
Waiver of right of respondents State of California and Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. to respond filed.
Apr 17 2018
Waiver of right of respondent County of San Diego to respond filed.
Feb 20 2018
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 14, 2018)