Cases compared
Crocker v. CenterPoint Energy vs. King Miguel Eddie Crayton v. J. N. Williams, Deputy vs. Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar v. Niemi
No. 26-5015No. 26-5022No. 26-5033
Side by side
| Fact | Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint Energy | King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Petitioner v. J. N. Williams, Deputy, et al. | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint Energy26-5015 | King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Petitioner v. J. N. Williams, Deputy, et al.26-5022 | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio26-5033 |
| Status | Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint EnergyDismissed | King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Petitioner v. J. N. Williams, Deputy, et al.Dismissed | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioDismissed |
| Date | Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint EnergyOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) | King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Petitioner v. J. N. Williams, Deputy, et al.October Term 2026 (2026–2027) | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioOctober Term 2026 (2026–2027) |
| Question presented | Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint Energy1. 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. | King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Petitioner v. J. N. Williams, Deputy, et al.1. Whether a federal district court violates due process when it dismisses a pro se litigant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without meaningful consideration of the factual allegations and without affording a genuine opportunity to amend. 2. Whether a court of appeals may affirm dismissal of a pro se civil rights complaint on procedural grounds without addressing the underlying constitutional violations. 3. Whether dismissal practices that prevent substantive review of pro se civil rights claims undermine the constitutional guarantee of access to the courts. | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio1. Whether the Petitioner is detained in violation of the Constitution, where unconditional release upon an unconditional writ of habeas corpus has been ordered yet the state has denied such release? 2. Whether the Petitioner's continued detention violates due process where a vacated judgment is void ab initio, and the court fails to give legal effect to its own vacat.ui\? 3. Whether the Petitioner is detained in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Double Jeopardy and Process Clauses when denied the presumption of innocence of the underlying predicate "aggravated robbery," dismissed, June 9, 1998? 4. Whether detention violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments where the Constitution requires indictment by a grand jury, and the purported indictment fails to allege each and every element Necessary to constitute the purported offense where state law holds this fails to confer jurisdiction but consistently refuses to apply such holding? 5. Whether arrest, warrant, and detention without probable cause violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, rendering detention unlawful? 6. Whether a petitioner is unlawfully detained and entitled to dismissal of the indictment and immediate release where His Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to a Speedy Trial and Due Process has been violated? 7. Whether complete denial of bail violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, rendering detention unconstitutional? 8. Whether denial of a preliminary hearing violates Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws, resulting in unlawful detention? |
| Summary | Mitchell Crocker, Petitioner v. CenterPoint EnergyMitchell Crocker asks the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision leaving in place a ruling for CenterPoint Energy without a trial. 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. | King Miguel Eddie Crayton, Petitioner v. J. N. Williams, Deputy, et al.King Miguel Eddie Crayton, representing himself, asks the Supreme Court to review the dismissal of his civil-rights complaint against three deputies. His filing asks whether the lower courts properly considered his allegations, gave him a genuine chance to amend, and addressed the claimed constitutional violations. | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioMalik Allah-U-Akbar asks the Supreme Court to review his continued detention, arguing that Ohio has not released him despite a court order for unconditional release and that his detention rests on a judgment the court wiped out and an indictment (formal criminal charge) missing required elements. He also claims the detention violates protections against double jeopardy and the presumption of innocence regarding a dismissed aggravated-robbery charge. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Civil Rights
- Why compared
- Reviewed Civil Rights tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.