Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Jody D. Kimbrell v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-2483 · judgment May 20, 2025
Questions presented
-
Under Federal Rule for venue change can Central District Court of California change rule procedures if plaintiff is pro se?
-
Can Ninth Circuit ignore District Court procedure 28 USC 1404(a) when all parties did not consent and due process FRCP 12 by ignoring 14 days for plaintiff pro se to oppose venue change?
-
Can Central District of California transfer case in alleged bias against a Pro se plaintiff when the only witness is an Illinois recorded deed remitted by the defendants/respondents into the case?
-
Can the defendant’s California attorney fail to give notice of venue change to plaintiff pro se because he was hired as a US Attorney for the Northern District of California?
-
Can a defendants/respondents move case to Central District of Illinois, demands payment then denies lifting the prohibition after collecting the $900 sanctions and barring plaintiff right to due process in a court of law?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jody D. Kimbrell
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Mar 23 2026Petition DENIED.
- Mar 05 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2026.
- Jan 29 2026Petitioner complied with order of January 12, 2026.
- Jan 12 2026The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until February 2, 2026, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
- Dec 04 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
- Aug 18 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 24, 2025)