Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Maria Navarro Martin v. Florida
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 23-12412 · judgment January 31, 2025
Questions presented
-
Whether petitioner was afforded due process in the decisions rendered by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, since that “if the underlying judgment is void, the judgment based upon it is also void”.
-
Whether the “lack of notice of the entry of judgment” and legal matter, was overlooked in the decision, upon the circuit court statements: “mail from the district court were returned as undeliverable” which was a conflict of decisions as established by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2006).
-
Whether Petitioner was denied the procedural due process because the circuit court considered issues beyond the scope of the appeal which were available to the “court only”, where the Circuit Court did not "afford to the appellant an opportunity to present [her] objections.
-
Whether The opinion of the Eleventh Circuit court of Appeal is in conflict with a decision of the United States Supreme Court in the light of the decision rendered in SHALALA v SCHAEFER 509 US 292, 125 L Ed 2d 239, 113 SCT 2625 (1993), which this court erred finding “the notice of appeal was untimely”.
-
Whether the appellant allegations shall be accepted as true, if the government did not traversed the appellant allegation in the “Initial Brief” filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Maria Navarro Martin
For respondent
Sonya Roebuck Horbelt
Office of the Attorney General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 06 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).
- Aug 28 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
- Aug 26 2025Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
- Jun 10 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 5, 2025)