These are the reasons he is going to scotus:
“ Before a decision was rendered by the 10th Circuit, Brunson realized he could bypass the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court by invoking the high court’s Rule 11. Under the rule, a case pending before the appeals court may bypass that court’s decision and go to the Supreme Court if it “is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The Supreme Court received Brunson’s petition in September 2022.”
“ Before a decision was rendered by the 10th Circuit, Brunson realized he could bypass the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court by invoking the high court’s Rule 11. Under the rule, a case pending before the appeals court may bypass that court’s decision and go to the Supreme Court if it “is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The Supreme Court received Brunson’s petition in September 2022.”
The initial submission of a petition to SCOTUS was rejected by the clerk of the court. The revised Petition was not accepted at Scotus until October 20, 2022, after the 10th Circuit had issued its Opinion on October 6, 2022. A Rule 11 bypass did not happen.
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).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
In the case, the actual petition for writ of cert was filed on October 20th, after the judgment in the 10th Circuit was entered on October 6th.
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
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.
I’m not sure of your point: the case could not be granted in either the District Court, Circuit Court, or SCOTUS. It has no merit because no court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought