Skip to main content

Access to appeal records

Crocker v. CenterPoint Energy

Updated Nov 11, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Mitchell Crocker asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision leaving in place a ruling for CenterPoint Energy without a trial.
Who it affects
The judgment for CenterPoint remains in place in Crocker's case, but the Supreme Court did not rule on his claims about the appeal record or evidence.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint Energy
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

He says he lacked access to the record for his appeal and that the judgment relied on false statements and improperly rejected other evidence, including a Texas Workforce Commission decision.

Crocker said he lacked the transcript and record for his appeal and that the judgment relied on false statements and rejected evidence, including a Texas Workforce Commission decision.

Question presented

1. Whether the Fifth Circuit violated the Due Process and Equal Protection principles articulated in Swenson v. Bosler, Griffin v. Illinois, and Mayer v. Chicago by affirming summary judgment while Petitioner — an indigent, pro se litigant — was denied access to the transcript and record necessary for meaningful appellate review. 2. Whether a federal judgment may stand when it was procured through admitted false sworn statements, including a fabricated termination date and an impossible lawsuit filing date, in violation of Rule 11(b)(3), Rule 56(c)(4), and the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the district court erred by refusing to consider a final Texas Workforce Commission Appeal Tribunal decision finding no misconduct — evidence that Fifth Circuit precedent requires courts to treat as probative of pretext under McInnis v. Alamo Community College District. 4. Whether fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3) requires relief where the record contains perjury, fabricated dates, hearsay, double hearsay, and declarations lacking personal knowledge, contrary to this Court ’ s decisions in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. and Rozier v. Ford Motor Co.

Documents

1

Docket activity

7
  • New analysis added

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 11, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 11, 2026 · Generated

  • New analysis added

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

Show 2 more
  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 11, 2026 · Court records

  • Brief added: Petition

    Jun 23, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 11, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis