Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Roberto Corral v. Arrow Electronics, Inc.

IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 24-2574 · judgment July 22, 2025


Certiorari denied · May 18, 2026

Question presented

Question 1: If the District Court (Judge Wicks) uses an email with incorrect data to build his criteria and dismiss the case, should a revision of the facts be allowed? This is of significant importance nationwide because it is a Federal violation to disregard medical accommodations Question 2: Plaintiff’s director and manager participated in a sinister setup in which they used pretext to convince and deceive their HR department and later, the various Courts. There is evidence in the case documents that Judge Wicks observed how Russo spoke with their HR department about not allowing Plaintiff to participate in various meetings (Final Written Warning) where Plaintiff was getting framed. Judge Wicks said in his report (doc 157) that in this case, we cannot take action because Director Russo is involved. Question 3: One of the arguments Judge Azrack used to deny Plaintiff’s case said: “The submitted Doctor’s note reflects a lack of diligence by Plaintiff given that it predates Plaintiffs extension request by twelve days.”. Plaintiff did not mean harm. His only objective was to show good cause and that his symptoms were and are persistent every day, multiple times a day, with unexpected increases in frequency and potency. This included before, during, and after Plaintiffs deadline. To clarify, Plaintiff got the doctor’s confirmation of the date when they adviced him to get medical help. Can this reason for denying the case be reviewed? Question 4: There are other statements on the closing arguments of Judge Wicks and Judge Azrack that Plaintiff would like to show they were pretextual. Is it acceptable if Plaintiff files a Motion and describes the various issues there?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Roberto Corral

For respondent
Jennifer Y Davis
Jennifer Y. Davis

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
25A433

Proceedings

  1. Aug 13 2026
    DISTRIBUTED.
  2. Jun 12 2026
    Petition for Rehearing filed.
  3. May 18 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  4. Apr 24 2026
    Waiver of right of respondent Arrow Electronics, Inc. to respond filed.
  5. Apr 23 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/14/2026.
  6. Dec 19 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 10, 2026)
  7. Oct 15 2025
    Application (25A433) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until December 19, 2025.
  8. Oct 10 2025
    Application (25A433) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 20, 2025 to December 19, 2025, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.