Case: Walker v. Barnett

Clayton v. Barnett

The Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project

Complaint (COURT USE ONLY)

Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Miscellaneous Relief

NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF: The Clerks Office has received your Complaint together with an Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs. A new case has been opened. Copy of docket sheet sent to plaintiff. CM/ECF Pro Se Litigant Application Form also sent to plaintiff. Any further documents or correspondence you send to the Clerks Office concerning your case must include the case number. All documents submitted for filing must also contain an original signature. Submitted documents are electronically scanned for filing and they become the official court record. The quality of the official court record is determined by the quality of the original documents received for filing. Writing should only be on one side of the paper and writing must be dark enough for scanning. All documents must be on 8.5 x 11 inch paper. The plaintiff must keep the Court informed if the plaintiff's address changes. If the Court is not kept informed and multiple items are returned as undelivered, the plaintiff's case may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (CLR) (Entered: 04/09/2020)

New Case Letter - Nonprisoner Case

Miscellaneous Relief

Affidavit in Support of Motion

Miscellaneous Relief

Miscellaneous Relief

Miscellaneous Relief

Miscellaneous Relief

Notice of Change of Address

Miscellaneous Relief

ORDER denying 9 Motion to be allowed to submit documents for filing by email. The Clerk of Courts sent Mr. Walker a CM/ECF Pro Se Litigant Applicaiton Form on April 9, 2020. This form sets forth rules and procedures for using the CM/ECF system. If Mr. Walker wants the court to consider his motion to be authorized to file documents using the CM/ECF system, he must complete this form and file it. The court will then consider his motion. The court has no other mechanism to authorize the filing of documents by email. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on May 5, 2020. (Schreier, Karen) Modified on 5/5/2020. Sent to Clayton G. Walker via USPS (SKK). (Entered: 05/05/2020)

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

ORDER denying as moot 10 Motion to file documents by email. For the same reasons stated in docket 13, this motion is denied. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on May 5, 2020. (Schreier, Karen) Modified on 5/5/2020. Sent to Clayton G. Walker via USPS (SKK). (Entered: 05/05/2020)

Miscellaneous Relief

Request for Issuance of Summons(es)

Miscellaneous Relief

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying as moot 3 Motion for Summons; denying 5 Motion for Declared Emergency; denying 7 Motion for Oral Arguments; denying 8 Motion for Legal Assistant; denying 12 Se cond Motion for Declared Emergency; and denying 15 Third Motion for Declared Emergency. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 5/19/2020. (CLR) Modified on 5/19/2020 delivered to Clayton Walker with sample Summons and USM 285 form and blank Summons and USM 285 form via USPS (CLR).

Miscellaneous Relief

Miscellaneous Relief

Miscellaneous Relief

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Notice of Change of Address

Hearing

Summons Issued

Objection

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Hearing. Mr. Walker argues that he is entitled to a hearing on his motions under the due process clause. In the event this matter goes to trial or a hearing on the merits, he will be afforded a hearing. But a litigant is not entitled to a hearing on every motion that is filed in a case. Most matters can be addressed based on the written motions and responses without a hearing. At docket 27, Mr. Walker objects to the court's prior screening order that dismissed the claims against the United States and the federal employees. He argues that the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity. But that applies to contracts and takings claims−−neither of which is alleged here. He also argues that Bivens would allow relief. The court already addressed in its screening order why Bivens does not apply here. Walker contends sovereign immunity is waived by the Federal Tort Claims Act. But the Federal Tort Claims Act requires a party to present a claim to the appropriate Federal Agency and the Agency must deny the claim before the Federal Court has jurisdiction over a federal tort claim. See 28 U.S.C. section 2675(a). Walker has not alleged that this claim was submitted to a federal agency and denied. As a result, the claims against the United States and the federal employees were dismissed as frivolous. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on June 2, 2020. (Schreier, Karen) Modified on 6/3/2020. Sent to Clayton G. Walker via USPS (SKK). (Entered: 06/02/2020)

Order on Motion for Hearing

Summons Returned Executed

Notice of Appearance

Dismiss

Memorandum in Support of Motion

Certificate

Notice of Appearance

Reconsideration

Affidavit

Entry of Default

Affidavit

Brief

Certificate of Service

Extend

Notice

Affidavit

Reply

Default Judgment

Affidavit in Support of Motion

Default Judgment

Affidavit in Support of Motion

Brief

Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney

Request

Miscellaneous Relief

Affidavit in Support of Motion

Request

Notice

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 37 Motion for Entry of Default; denying as moot 41 Motion to Extend; denying 45 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 47 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 52 Motion for Liberal Construction; and granting 31 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/22/2020. (CLR)

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 37 Motion for Entry of Default; denying as moot 41 Motion to Extend; denying 45 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 47 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 52 Motion for Liberal Construction; and granting 31 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/22/2020. (CLR)

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 37 Motion for Entry of Default; denying as moot 41 Motion to Extend; denying 45 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 47 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 52 Motion for Liberal Construction; and granting 31 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/22/2020. (CLR)

Judgment

Judgment

Judgment

Notice of Appeal

Notice of Appeal

Notice of Appeal

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit COA

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit COA

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit COA

Notice of Appeal

Notice of Appeal

Notice of Appeal

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit COA

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit COA

Transmittal of Notice of Appeal to 8th Circuit COA

USCA Case Number and Briefing Schedule

USCA Case Number and Briefing Schedule

USCA Case Number and Briefing Schedule

USCA Opinion

USCA Opinion

USCA Opinion

USCA Judgment

USCA Judgment

USCA Judgment

USCA Order

USCA Order

USCA Order

USCA Mandate

USCA Mandate

USCA Mandate

Letter Re Writ of Certiorari

Letter Re Writ of Certiorari

Letter Re Writ of Certiorari

Letter Re Writ of Certiorari

Letter Re Writ of Certiorari

Letter Re Writ of Certiorari