Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Samuel Lee Smith, Jr. v. Mark H. Slimak
IFP petition · District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, No. 3D2024-0140 · judgment February 26, 2025
Question presented
Did the trial court commit reversible error’s dismissing the petition for an injunction to prevent Respondent from stalking? Did the court violate the procedural due process clause, enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution when it denied Petitioner relief without affording him a hearing in violation of the Petitioner’s due process right to notice, opportunity to be heard and the right to have a decision from an impartial decision-maker as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution? Did the officer violate the Petitioners 4th Amendment rights? Are the trial courts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § Section 242 Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law? Did the judge commit an error by not disqualifying themselves? Divine law beliefs center on the idea that moral and ethical principles originate from a higher power or God, shaping both individual and societal behavior. These laws are often seen as superior to human-made laws and are believed to be universal, eternal, and unchanging.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Samuel Lee Smith Jr.
For respondent
Rhea Pincus Grossman
Rhea P. Grossman, P.A.
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.
- Sep 04 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
- Aug 23 2025Waiver of right of respondent Mark H. Slimak to respond filed.
- May 18 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 15, 2025)