Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Laurack D. Bray v. Matthew Scott Kenefick, Individually and as Partner in Jeffers Mangels, et al.

IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 24-7622 · judgment February 26, 2025

Certiorari denied · October 6, 2025

Questions presented

  1. IS IT REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS TO TREAT OPPOSING PARTIES (ONE A BLACK MALE ATTORNEY AND THE OTHER A WHITE MALE ATTORNEY ) DIFFERENTLY IN REACHING ITS DECISION IN THE CASE?

  2. ARE FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY A FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE TREATED THE SAME AS FALSE STATEMENTS MADE BY LITIGANTS DURING THE COURSE OF LITIGATION?

  3. IS THE CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT TO BRING A 42 U.S.C. sec. 1981 CLAIM, AS ESPOUSED IN DOMINO'S PIZZA, STILL GOOD LAW FOR NON-CONTRACT sec. 1981 CLAIMS?

  4. CAN A CASE LEGALLY BE DEEMED FRIVOLOUS WHERE THERE IS A PENDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY REVERSAL TO BE DECIDED ?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Laurack D. Bray

For respondent
—

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 06 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jul 17 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
  3. May 22 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 30, 2025)
    Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixProof of Service