Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
In Re Eli Angelino
IFP petition
Questions presented
-
Whether a Clerk of Court violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by "misconstruing" an official judicial record—specifically by maintaining a fraudulent "IFP Pending" status for over 70 days despite a prior fee waiver (Entry 31)—to block the entry of a $100,000,000.00 default judgment?
-
Whether a Clerk of Court violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing a "clerical embargo" on a pro se litigant—holding curative filings (Entries 87-107) in a perpetual "Received" status—to prevent the case from reaching a Judge for a ruling on the merits?
-
Whether a Court of Appeals may constructively deny the right of access to the courts by indefinitely withholding a ruling on an In Forma Pauperis (IFP) application while allowing a "default" clock to run against an indigent petitioner who has provided forensic proof of identity?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Eli Angelino
For respondent
Hannah J. Sarokin
New York City Law Department
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jun 15 2026Petition DENIED.
- May 27 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2026.
- May 23 2026Supplemental brief of petitioner In Re Eli Angelino filed. (Distributed)
- May 11 2026Waiver of right of respondent City of New York, et al. to respond filed.
- Apr 14 2026Supplemental brief of petitioner Eli Angelino filed.
- Mar 19 2026Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 11, 2026)