You don't know about Rule 11?
They used the Court's own Rule 11 to bypass the 10th Circuit
who had been sitting on the case for months.
I suggest you better familiarize yourself with the case before opining.
They used the Court's own Rule 11 to bypass the 10th Circuit who had been sitting on the case for months.
The Petition was not accepted and docketed at Scotus until after the 10th Circuit issued its Opinion on October 6, 2022.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before JudgmentA petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).
Brunson v. Adams, S Ct 22-380
The Petition for Writ of Cert was filed October 20, 2024.
It was received by the Office of the Clerk October 24, 2022.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf
Brunson v. Adams, et al., No. 22-4007 (10th Cir. 10/6/2022)At 18-19:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
Raland Brunson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Defendants removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Mr. Brunson filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Recommendation) that the action be dismissed for two independent reasons: (1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.
At 19-20:
Mr. Brunson filed a timely objection to the Recommendation, arguing only that the magistrate judge did not address the arguments in his opposition to the motion to dismiss and thereby deprived him of due process. The district court overruled the objection, concluding there was no authority for Mr. Brunson’s proposition “that a reviewing court must specifically address arguments made in brief,” and finding he “was afforded procedural due process by receiving notice of the motion to dismiss and having a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.” R. at 510. Because Mr. Brunson did not assert any objections to the magistrate judge’s conclusions that he lacked standing or that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the district court determined he had “waived any objections to [those] conclusions.” Id. The court then adopted the Recommendation in full, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and entered a separate judgment. This appeal followed.
At 23:
Essentially, he contends that because he alleged the defendants acted fraudulently, and because “‘fraud vitiates whatever it touches,’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (quoting Est. of Stonecipher v. Est. of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex. 1979)), he has an “unfettered right to sue the Defendants,” id. at 2, and any federal law or case law is inapplicable if it “support[s] treason, acts of war or the violation of Brunson’s inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id. at 8. But none of his supporting authorities suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly “inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III standing.
At 24:
III. Conclusion
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge