Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Frederick Stampone v. Brittian Amann, et al.
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 23-1617 · judgment May 21, 2024
Question presented
(cott 7INUE on N£KT PAGE , 1» 15 mv wire Mailta jo life more important then JURIS DI CTloM ? (A) PETITIONER STAMPONE SAis N.O. (6) VHIT6D STATES DISTRICT COURT OF NEWARK, HJ SAYS Y£S* (c) UtSt Court OF APPEALS THIR0 CIRCUIT SAiS VES* (P) U>S CouRT OF APPEALS 3RP CIRCUIT REHEARING SAYS YES* 2* Does THIS CASE HAVE MERIT ? (A) PETITIONER STAMPONE SAiS YES> (B) u,s, district court of newark,nx magistrate judge 5AV5 THIS CASE HAS MERIT DOMING TW£ FlflST PHoNE CONFERENCE* (SEE RECORDING OF FIRST PHoNE CONFERENCE) 3* WAS MARTA Jo CoMpETlVE, ALERT, ORIENTED A NO A0LE To MARC HER. OWN DECISIONS ON AMP AFTER. AUG057 2^, Bol*? ? (A) PETITIONER STAMPONE SAiS YES* (A) defendant Judge David M* murKowski in Cdmplaintsays KJo* (c) 5LoAM KETTERlNGi (ONC OF TH£ BEST HoSPlTAlIN THE V/oRtD) SAis Yes. (see mafia's medical report in complaint*) (D) Mayo clinic(one of the best hospital in. The world) says yes, (see Marta's medical records in exhibits of complaint and exhibit TV in this petition ) (e) state Judge Joseph r Klein said Both marta jo a»d x ale comp erne enough To be married on September % Zon.($EE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE IN complaint exhibits*) 4* WAS MARTA J0 AND PETITION STAMP0N6 DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTED BY UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ?(a)FETITI0NER SAIS YES* (/continue ON next page)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Frederick Stampone
For respondent
Elizabeth Butler
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Nov 10 2025Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
- Oct 22 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
- Jun 03 2025Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
- May 19 2025The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the 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 (1992) (per curiam).
- Apr 30 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2025.
- Apr 02 2025Waiver of right of respondent Charles Clapp to respond filed.
- Mar 28 2025Waiver of right of respondents Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Craig Thompson to respond filed.
- Mar 27 2025Waiver of right of respondents Gretchen Whitmer, State of Michigan, Dana Nessel, Fadwa A. Hammoud to respond filed.
- Mar 27 2025Waiver of right of respondents Rockford Police Department and Police Chief Dave Robinson to respond filed.
- Mar 26 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 25, 2025.
- Mar 25 2025Waiver of right of respondents David M. Murkowski, Christopher Becker, and Michael Tomich to respond filed.
- Mar 24 2025Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 26, 2025 to April 25, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 28 2025Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Oct 01 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 26, 2025)