Appeal filing bans
Murrugarra v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Peter J. Murrugarra asks the Supreme Court to review Connecticut appellate-court orders that he says barred future filings in his home foreclosure case and dismissed his pending appeal without naming the judges.
- What's at stake
- The challenged orders restrict Murrugarra's foreclosure-related filings and dismissed his appeal; whether they violated his due-process rights remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The petition was placed on the conference schedule, but the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear it, so the questions remain unresolved.
Murrugarra represents himself in a dispute arising from the foreclosure of his home. He says Connecticut appellate-court orders barred further foreclosure-related filings and dismissed his pending appeal without naming the judges.
The dispute comes from a Connecticut home-foreclosure case and concerns the state appeals court's filing restrictions and handling of Murrugarra's appeal.
Question presented
1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state appellate court, on an opponent’s motion, to bar a self-represented civil litigant for one year from filing any appeal or pre-appeal motion arising out of the foreclosure of his home, and to direct its clerk to reject any filing in violation of the bar, by an order that identifies no offending filing, finds none frivolous or made in bad faith, states no standard, and provides no exception and no procedure for leave to file? 2. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state appellate court to dismiss a pending appeal and bar the appellant’s future filings by orders that conclude “By the Court,” name no judge, and bear no signature, and for which the court’s own docket records no panel, so that the litigant cannot determine whether grounds for recusal or disqualification of the decision-maker exist?
What happens next
The Court must decide whether to hear the petition. It was distributed for the Dec. 4, 2026, conference, but that does not guarantee an order date; oral argument is not scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
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.