Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

In Re Walter Drummond

IFP petition

Dismissed · October 20, 2025

Question presented

If IS EYiteHT^ MA'vA^/siH Jusna ^TeIAT TM tffSFONWTS THE TiM£ DF THF mTTibNtf& UNLAWFUL AMpSTJ 4M ILLfGiAL MiMblDA fl J ' CA ‘ LLE D "THE "~nn ~'I_ ggW^RD COuMTr SHEfflfps OWCECgSO) AMRAWA AT iSASTJ "Alai'Ch ^oft (We,s-f V. 51a-fee>f Ffon\h (THE AgspohJbFiVTC, MACAW /StA. Jl/Tj/Ccz ) g7i, Sp. Z</ (nib Y^) 4>/5^ un-h / “YlYdj 2AoY (P^sfJtn/ v. S/3/« of Ja Ctas’P&sPoaa&aTs) } 0g4 So 2d i2.b-l^> /2t; 4/VOjW^ IT WAS vAWEb 8Y TwE of FL0P1 b A j dots /he. -form adv/'s^- of rdtfhr Y> hare 2 laAy^-C pr£5j2_n4 during ni/&s~lt6 n»-n“ fig. aa'ce.Q. a>n<d fA(i-rs&.>' /4N& DIt) -SOj MAbn^ysi'g J05T1C6" .' " jjxcaus’A 4hc Al/<anJa"/ uJar-nfn o r£.cjL< v'&J -fst'le-A -fb in form him -HW hg had a- r*<^h-4 -Vo Ylatf-e, an aY^ocng-y pre.^-e.nY'^oft'rx'njT' (TUts+i'otnW CRob4.r4s V. S+a4«. &£ Flpr/cU RfSPOf/bE'fi/T^ 07^ So. 2d /2.2^>Y) A/ADAPIISip JUSTiCY^ WITH w FACTS of,lBASFt> obi FoStKTSf <'sut SWt oT Flon’Ja 4THE ^ESPoMDE^TS) v. WiSSf So. 2d H5 .‘ ‘‘4/ix 4r<>( coor4 cfrarft^d 4^ renew-«d me+ion 3^d pn ZcWZr ", AM> AlAbAiYt/SiR JUSTICE, NUMEROUS0OTpEK CASCS QoT DVERTUPHFC) t T?UE To TU£ -form YhaJ -khz <B<50 ^ro^i'd^ 4o ^4<s a-FfTc^rs^ The- form <54a4€& as -folfcsvS'. /op hav-e- 44i& ri^h4 4o S>Ua-n4- Any4bi yoo S3\f &an be l^S-eU 3.<fgl''nsC you in 3 c.cur| o-f lauz You have -rha, ri\f'h4' Yo 4a4K 4o a iswyer and. h^r-e 4 h Q lawyer p^-^+ Wore l-C yoe tan(^ afford. a lawaer, on< u>‘|l b-e a/Jfoin+ed 4-0 re,pr«,s^n4 yoJ before any aue.sd <Too C'n >V,pu tishF i madam/sia ju$ricel Nowt/ene Dogs the wed /mse ft ri&ht to mavc ah at PX£S£HT DUfWC QVeSTWHW ’(WCS'DEWT. >&(& lift% , 5f4ooLt>M!T PgR*"^ U.S.C.A 14 ~s<zc. I IN WtflCd so LAWS : “A/o S-faft sha // ma/Y& e>r a-n-Corc^. 2ny lw Wh^h s/Jn abr.'d^ -Me. prfyfttf^ or /MMUoftFe-s &f MePnffed TP£ PfTtT/OK&R ALSD CKTlTUFb TO Td£7 Sfafv CPESAOAfDerA/TSj , "BteeJ on Tfft^ " LAW, WPM M^AFSSLf GlPMUD ^T^'fSTAre^^ AM YAcA TEb YTs P/tfV'MS 6P^P ™ Ttlf SAM? AT ILL^A i 4WMD&WT M/MWDA ? Z . /Vl/lDAM /51A JUSTICE4 sMaI't TJE P^TfO^/e g£ IMCtUDKb IN Sda+e of fiends CT^ ' I A ft£6PoHbWrz) v W£g^ Pre.$'d-tn-f ^ £ Mt rtf (pfANZLitf MASKS illOiUbEQ Ti-hs Time 1 £)f TPS R&PbNbSfiTK') f (W2 5o. zj I0M (Fla, S OW TAP &A$i$ OF TPF^ At Ttwtg^ PA.E^Lfi.i lUSGAL WHAANDA 8Y TfK PtSPbtotW/TS ? iF M0T)TSEI/WHAt LbUSTTure^ Wtsi Pr^den-i? I faberfs Yo^r AS/AFSPo^^ " oTAtte 7ASW ta^ difT TAve AP*W)Aj;Y t^/s *4, MaMM ft'# JKf/Off' Wf<r /Vrf 2

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Walter Drummond

For respondent
—

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences

Proceedings

Oct 20 2025
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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).
Oct 14 2025
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
Oct 06 2025
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
Sep 29 2025
Rescheduled.
Jul 03 2025
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
Apr 15 2025
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Petition Appendix Proof of Service