Cases compared
Donskoy v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services vs. Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar v. Niemi
No. 26-5026No. 26-5033
Side by side
| Fact | Sergey Donskoy, Petitioner v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio |
|---|---|---|
| Docket | Sergey Donskoy, Petitioner v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services26-5026 | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio26-5033 |
| Status | Sergey Donskoy, Petitioner v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesDismissed | Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar, Petitioner v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, OhioDismissed |
| Date | Sergey Donskoy, Petitioner v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesOctober 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 | Sergey Donskoy, Petitioner v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services1. Whether the legal test examining the transactional nucleus of facts shared between causes of action, which evolved as common law of “res judicata doctrine” for the purpose of estoppel, is unconstitutional. 2. Whether the court of appeals may not take for review on the merits and grant a motion for summary disposition at “any time” during prolonged extension of time given for filing the answering brief. 3. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming, based on “insubstantial appeal” standard, the district court dismissal of the Petitioner’s complaint. | 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 | Sergey Donskoy, Petitioner v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesSergey Donskoy asks the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision that upheld dismissal of his complaint against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He challenges the rule for deciding whether claims share the same facts, the timing of the appeals court’s summary decision, and its use of an “insubstantial appeal” standard; his petition remains pending. | 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
- Immigration
- Why compared
- Reviewed Immigration 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.