Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Vincent Terry v. McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, et al.

IFP petition · Court of Appeals of Georgia, No. A24A1348 · judgment March 13, 2025


Pending

Question presented

This case arises from a state-court adjudicative process in which the neutrality of decision­ making was called into question by sworn testimony describing staff-level interference: Petitioner’s motions were withheld from consideration while Respondents’ motions were docketed or ruled upon; the staff attorney exercised discretionary control over motion scheduling and information flow; and serious allegations of procedural manipulation were raised in open court and left unrebutted. Rather than address these structural concerns, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an unexplained summary affirmance under its Rule 36, and the Georgia Supreme Court denied review. Taken together, the breakdown at the trial level and the silence at the appellate level left preserved federal constitutional claims unresolved and effectively insulated from meaningful review. This case presents fundamental questions about whether due process permits such a system to operate without judicial explanation. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE: 1. Structural Due Process / Neutral Adjudication Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a state trial court’s adjudicative process is alleged to be structurally compromised by undisclosed staff­ level interference affecting motion scheduling, information filtering, and record development, where sworn post-judgment testimony raises those concerns, yet no state court ever conducts a hearing, makes findings, or adjudicates the resulting federal constitutional claim.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Vincent Terry

For respondent
Matthew Nolan Foree
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Linked docket
25A350, 25A1174

Proceedings

  1. Jul 16 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2026.
  2. Jun 06 2026
    Petitioner complied with order of April 20, 2026.
  3. May 28 2026
    Application (25A1174) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until July 10, 2026.
  4. May 21 2026
    Application (25A1174) to extend further the time from June 10, 2026 to July 10, 2026, submitted to Justice Thomas.
  5. Apr 24 2026
    Application (25A1174) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 10, 2026.
  6. Apr 20 2026
    The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until May 11, 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.
  7. Apr 20 2026
    Application (25A1174) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of an extension of time within which to comply, submitted to Justice Thomas.
  8. Mar 26 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2026.
  9. Mar 17 2026
    Waiver of right of respondent Mccalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
  10. Feb 12 2026
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 20, 2026)
  11. Dec 16 2025
    Application (25A350) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until February 13, 2026.
  12. Dec 11 2025
    Application (25A350) to extend further the time from January 14, 2026 to February 13, 2026, submitted to Justice Thomas.
  13. Sep 26 2025
    Application (25A350) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until January 14, 2026.
  14. Sep 22 2025
    Application (25A350) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 15, 2025 to February 13, 2026, submitted to Justice Thomas.