Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Id. Conversely, Rule 10 expressly states that "[a] petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law." Id. The Petition should be denied because there are no "compelling reasons" for granting certiorari in this case. This case does not involve (1) a conflict among United States courts of appeals, (2) a conflict between a United States court of appeals and a state court of last resort, (3) a conflict on an important federal question among state courts of last resort, or (4) a conflict between this Court's decisions and the decisions of lower courts. Rather, this case involves a pro se appellant who, after repeated delays, failed to timely file his appendix, then failed to timely move to reinstate the appeal, and failed to show any extraordinary circumstances that would justify reinstating the appeal. 3. T h e Petition Fails on the Merits. A. The Clerk Properly Returned Ramirez's April 12, 2016, Motion Unified. Ramirez argues in the Petition that the Eleventh Circuit Clerk improperly returned his April 12, 2016, motion for extension of time to file his appendix a day late. As a pro se litigant, Ramirez was not excused from complying with the rules of procedure. See Faretta v. California, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541, 422 U.S. 806, 834 (1975) ("The right of self-representation is not a license ... not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law."); see also Moton v. Cowart, 631 15
F.3d 1337, 1341 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011) (pro se litigants still have to comply with procedural rules). Ramirez was already familiar with the applicable Eleventh Circuit rules of procedure that he now disputes in his Petition. In his first appeal before the Eleventh Circuit, Ramirez failed to file record excerpts, and his appeal was dismissed. (R.A.2). In that instance, after receiving notice from the clerk of the dismissal (R.A.1)— the substance of which was the same as the April 20, 2016, clerk's notice (A.1, 34) — he filed a motion to reinstate the appeal, per Eleventh Circuit Rules 42-2 and 42-3. (R.A.3-10). However, in his April 12, 2016, "Motion of Extraordinary Circumstances,"7 Ramirez sought permission to file his appendix late and asked the court not to close the appeal. (A.38-40). In other words, Ramirez sought a third extension of time. Eleventh Circuit Rule 31-2(e), entitled "Briefs and Appendices — Motion to Extend Time," requires that a "request for an extension of time to file the brief or appendix pursuant to this rule must be made or filed prior to the expiration or the due date for filing the brief or appendix." Rule 31-2(e) further states that the "clerk is without authority to file an appellant's motion for an extension of time to file the brief or appendix received by the clerk after the expiration of the due date 7Eleventh Circuit Rule 31-2(d) states that a party's second request for extension of time to file its brief or appendix is "extremely disfavored" and requires a "showing of extraordinary circumstances that were not foreseeable at the time the first request was made." 1 1 th Cir. R. 31- 2(d). Presumably, any subsequent request also would require such a showing. 16
Page 1 and 2: Ogletree Deakins Karen M. Morinelli
Page 3 and 4: QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. D o Federal
Page 5 and 6: QUESTIONS PRESENTEDi TABLE OF CONTE
Page 7 and 8: Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
Page 9 and 10: JURISDICTION Ramirez's Petition for
Page 11 and 12: STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULES INVO
Page 13 and 14: After remand, the district court ag
Page 15 and 16: and to "find that the circumstances
Page 17 and 18: On November 21, 2016, Ramirez sough
Page 19 and 20: filing by either party hence, the a
Page 21: 2587, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (cit
Page 25 and 26: Simply calling a document a motion
Page 27 and 28: motion to set aside the dismissal a
Page 29 and 30: (Petition, p. 11). Nevertheless, th
Page 31 and 32: CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT For al
Page 33 and 34: NO. 16-7880 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
Page 35 and 36: Dated March 13, 2017. Respectfully
Page 37 and 38: Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 12/17/20
Page 39 and 40: R.A. 4 Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 0
Page 41 and 42: P A Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 01/0
Page 43 and 44: PA R Case: 12-14679 Date Filed: 01/
Page 45 and 46: D A 1 A Case: 12-14679 Date Filed:
Page 53 and 54: Qase: 15-11914 IDAte [CASE: 15-1191
Page 55 and 56: 'RES UNITED STATES 1 POSTAL SERVICF
Page 57 and 58: The order of the United States Cour
Page 59 and 60: A No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UN
Page 61 and 62: 1) A ')4 Rule 31-2. Briefs and Appe
Page 63 and 64: 0 A 1 4 Rule 42-2. Dismissal in a C
Page 65 and 66: U.S.C. Title 28- JUDICIARY AND JUDI
Page 73 and 74:
U.S.C. Title 28- JUDICIARY AND JUDI
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87:
Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 28
show all

Bausch and Lomb_Opposition_2_RamirezWritofCert_2017-03-14

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?