The extension time to file writ of certiorary in the Supreme Court of United States was granted for 30 days. The writ is as below:
Request for Extension of Time for Filing of Writ of Certiorary
To the Honorable Clarence Thomas Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, pro se Petitioners Dr. Usha Jain and Manohar Jain, respectfully request that the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter be extended by 60 days, up to and including September 8,, 2024. In support thereof, Petitioners state the following:
- Judgement to be Reviewed: The judgement from which review is sought is Usha Jain et. al. v. David Barker et.al, Case No. 2020-11908 and 2021-11719, which was decided by the 11th Federal Circuit on January 4, 2024. A copy of that decision is attached as Appendix 1. Petitioners sought rehearing by the Federal Circuit, which was denied on April 11, 2024. A copy of the Federal Circuit’s order denying rehearing is attached as Appendix 2
- Current Deadline: The current deadline for filing a petition for writ of certiorari is July 10, 2024. This Application has been filed at least 10 days prior to that date pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5. Petitioners have not previously sought an extension of time in the appeal 21-11719 consolidated to 20-11908.
- Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). This court has jurisdiction to hear the judgment of highest court of the state regarding the Federal Law and the Constitution of United States of America.
Reasons for the Request
- Pending Legal Obligations: Petitioners have an appeal brief due in the 6th District Court of Appeal, which was due on June 16, 2024. I am currently seeking an abeyance of this brief due to numerous post-judgment motions that are still pending in the state court. Addressing these motions requires significant time and effort, which has impacted my ability to prepare my petition for a writ of certiorari.
- Search for Legal Representation: I am in the process of seeking an attorney to represent us in this matter before the Supreme Court. Securing appropriate legal counsel is critical for the effective presentation of our case, and this process is inherently time-consuming.
- New Evidence and Timeline Discrepancies: On June 7, 2024, we discovered significant alterations in the docket entry of the remand order. The entry was changed from the original “Order from the District Court of Tampa in 2021” to “a certified copy of the final order affirming remand,” omitting the crucial detail of Tampa. Additionally, the docket entry of the remand order was placed after our removal, which occurred on February 18, 2021. The remand order was received at 11:56 AM on February 18, 2021, but was recorded after the federal removal filing at 4:45 PM on the same day, misleading anyone reviewing the docket to believe that a certified remand order exists when it does not.
- Need for Thorough Investigation: Given the gravity of the alterations in the docket entries, I require additional time to investigate diligently to determine who made these changes, why they were made, and when they occurred. This investigation is essential for the integrity of my petition and the overall pursuit of justice. A thorough investigation will take time and is crucial to ensuring that my petition is accurate and comprehensive.
Importance of the Writ
The writ of certiorari Petitioner Jains are preparing addresses a critical issue regarding an endorsed remand order by Judge Mendoza was issued without a proper certified remand order, contrary to the procedural requirements mandated by law.
This situation is significant because it violates the requirements under federal law, specifically 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which mandates a certified copy of the remand order be sent to the state court to effectuate the remand. Without a certified remand order, jurisdiction should not be properly resumed by the state court, which appears to be a point of contention in our case. The endorsed order, as it stands, undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent if left unchallenged. This issue is separate from any sanctions-related matters and focuses solely on the procedural impropriety and statutory violations associated with the endorsed order.
The alterations in the docket entry and the timing of these entries raise serious concerns about the integrity of the judicial process and adherence to proper legal standards. The endorsed order, as it stands, undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent if left unchallenged.
National Significance: This case is of national significance due to substantial and important questions regarding unfairness of the homeowners Association and people losing their houses and systemic abuse of power against pro se litigants’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Equal Protection and Due Process: Judge Mendoza also held our notice of appeal in the chamber for six months compared to those of other litigants violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. All litigants whether represented by counsel or not, are entitled to equal protection under the law. The preferential treatment given to other filings over pro se Petitioners is a clear violation of this constitutional guarantee.
Lack of Prejudice: Petitioners submit that the requested extension of time would neither prejudice the Respondent nor result in undue delay in the Court’s consideration of the petition, and that good cause exists to grant the requested extension.
Given these compelling reasons, Petitioners respectfully request an additional 60 days to file our petition, extending the deadline to September 8, 2024. This extension will allow us sufficient time to adequately prepare our petition, seek appropriate legal representation, incorporate the newly discovered evidence and timeline discrepancies, and conduct a thorough investigation into the altered docket entries.
Respectfully submitted this day of June 23, 2024
Dr. Usha Jain and Manohar Jain Pro Se