RAMIREZ_PetitionFOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI_2_6_2017
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
3<br />
28 U.S.C. § 1332 diversity jurisdiction. See A. 55. After removal, Ramirez amended<br />
his complaint to proceed exclusively under Florida’s Private Whistleblower Act.<br />
3<br />
See<br />
A. 55.<br />
The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Bausch & Lomb.<br />
Ramirez took a first appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.<br />
4<br />
A. 65. Although Ramirez had<br />
the benefit of pro bono counsel in the district court, he was pro se and in forma<br />
pauperis on appeal. See A. 66. Ramirez nonetheless prevailed in his first appeal and<br />
the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings. A. 17–25.<br />
After remand, the district court again entered summary judgment in favor of<br />
Bausch & Lomb. A. 4–16. Ramirez took a second appeal. A. 53–54.<br />
During the second appeal, Ramirez proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis.<br />
A. 48, 53. He was homeless; slept in shelters or on the street; and could only access<br />
computer equipment for research and drafting at the public library. E.g., A. 69–71,<br />
97–99. He received mail through general delivery at the local post office (A. 3) but<br />
sometimes the documents that the court sent to him were not properly delivered<br />
(see, e.g., A. 51, 68). Although done through unsworn statements, Ramirez made the<br />
lower court aware of his situation from the very beginning of the appeal. E.g., A. 69–<br />
70.<br />
In September 2015, Ramirez timely filed a brief and appendix. A. 49. Bausch &<br />
Lomb filed a brief in response. A. 50. With its brief, Bausch & Lomb<br />
contemporaneously filed a motion to strike portions of Ramirez’s brief and appendix<br />
because they included material outside the record. A. 50. Although the motion only<br />
requested that the improper portions be stricken (A. 80), the lower court struck<br />
Ramirez’s brief and appendix in their entirety. A. 26–27. The lower court also struck<br />
3<br />
4<br />
Fla. Stat. § 448.101 et seq.<br />
№ 12-14669-E.