Utah
Urgent Help-Seeking
To whom it may concern,
I was a student who was wrongly terminated from a Ph.D. program at the University of Utah in 1999. My due process right was deprived of when I was suddenly terminated from the program because the department did not inform me of the coming termiantion and my right to appeal (Also, the termination was made by the Department Graduate Commettee which had no authority to do this according to the Universitity Code. The University Code clearly states that only the PhD student's supervisory comittee can decide the student's study in the program).
From 2000 I started to appeal within the University after my help with the family distress (my mother passed away in 1999). By 2002 March, all the four levels of the University appellate reviewers denied my appeals. Like the department, none of them presented university code or facts to indicate the so-called my "insufficiant progress" (Actually I had passed all the PhD qualified exams and my GPA is 3.75--the full score is 4.0. I also won the graduate fellowship award and taught two courses independantly in the department. The record shows that I was an excellant student).
Then in August 2002, I started my pro se lawsuit against the University of Utah. On Dec. 2002, the Salt Lake County Third District Court dismissed my lawsuit without predudice nor analysis, simply indicating the dismissal is due to my untimely notice of claim and the unavailability of judicial reviews to academic decisions.
On August 2003, I started my second amended lawsuit, suing the defendants in both their official and individual capacities about their unconstitutional deprivation of my rights and their malice. In Dec. 2003, the district court judge decided to have a hearing on Feb.9. On Jan.23, 2004, the district court made an order, indicating both sides should attend the hearing in document only, not in person (since I was in Beijing, China). On Jan. 29, 2004, I express-mailed my detailed and systematic argument to the court and confirmed the receipt of my mail by phone call. The defendants failed to present any documents for the hearing.
However, on March 1, 2004, the court judge made the entry of a short decision and dismissed my case, indicating the defendants appeared at the hearing and I did not so that the decision was made in favor of the defendants. This is completely erroneous! The fact is I attended the hearing by submitting my argument in document and the defendants did not.
Then it was until March 30, 2003 did the court signed the findings of facts and conclusion of laws prepared by the defendants. This greatly prejudiced me, a pro se litigant, far away from the United States (Their international mails unusally take more than 10 days to reach me but the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedures (URAP) demand that the notice of appeal should be filed within 30 days from the entry of the court's decision). Also, it was until April 21, 2004 did the court mail to me their signed copy of their findings of facts and conclusion of laws upon my inquiry over the phone call.
Luckily, I read the URAP and submitted my notice of appeal timely on March 23, 2004.
However, when I was busy preparing and submitting the many appellate documents requiried by the URAP, the Utah Court of Appeals (UCA) issued a Sua Sponty Motion for Summary Disposition to dismiss my appeal. Then I timely filed my response.
On Nov. 2004, the UCA issue a memorandum decision, affirming the district court's dismissal of my case. The main reason the UCA gives is that res judicata bars my relitigation.
In Dec. 2004, I filed my petition for rehearing (PFR) timely. The UCA denied my PFR without giving any reason. Just the docketing information on the court's webpage presents one word "denied".
The UCA's decision indicates:
res judicata bars my relitigation mainly because
1. The parties and privies were the same in the two lawsuits;
2. The issue was fully, competantly and fairly litigated on my first lawsuit and there was a final decision on merits;
3. I did not appeal the district court's decision on my first lawsuit.
I think the UCA's decision erred because the test for res judicata was not met in my case:
1. The parties and privies were not the same in the two lawsuits. I sued defendants in their official capacity in my first lawsuit and in both their official and individual capacities in my second lawsuit;
2. The issue that my due process rights were deprived of was never fully, competantly and fairly litigated on my first lawsuit and there was not a final decision on merits;
3. The district court dismissed my first lawsuit without prejudice and did not inform me that I could appeal their decision due to the Utah Rule of the Administrative Procedure. this clearly indicate I could start my second lawsuit instead of appealing their decision.
I also found a large amount of caselaws indicating I am correct and the UCA's decision is erroneous (I had presented these caselaws in my PWR to the Utah Supreme Court).
Then I filed my petition for writ of certiarori (PWC) in the Utah Supreme Court. I clearly indicate that the UCA's decision is in conflict with many decisions from the appellate or supreme courts and res judicata was misapplied to bar my relitigation and there were systematic errors in the district and appellate courts.
On April 6, 2005, the Utah Supreme Court denied my PWC by simply stating "it is hereby ordered pursuant to Rule 45 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied." I checked the rule 45. It states that "Rule 45. Review of judgments, orders, and decrees of court of appeals. Unless otherwise provided by law, the review of a judgment, an order, and a decree (herein referred to as "decisions") of the Court of Appeals shall be initiated by a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah." I think the Utah Supreme Court's order does not conform to the the Rule 45 of the URAP because it states that the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals shall be initiated by my petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah. I had submitted my PWC to the Utah Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court's review of the decision of the Court of Appeals on my case should be initiated. However, the Court denied my PWC and gave neither reasons nor any rules otherwise provided by law.
I think there were systematic errors in the Utah State courts and they were making use of my disadvantaged situation (I am a pro se litigant without any legal background and far away from the United States). During the past years of my lawsuits, I have ovecome many difficulties with working day and night and filed my documents timely with effective arguments and substantive facts while these Utah courts could only make use of the legal procedures, the complicated legal terms which I was not familiar with, and my very tight responsive time to prevent my lawsuit from going on. At last, the the Utah Supreme Court even denied my PWR without giving me any reasons or analysis.
Now I am preparing my new arguments against decisions of the Utah Supreme Court, the Utah appellate court, the district court, and the defendants.
Since I have read many laws (including the federal rules of appellate precedures and the Federal Rules of the Supreme Court) and caselaws. Now I have some questions I hope you can give me help.
1. The Federal Supreme Court reviews appeals or writ of certiorati. In their reviewing, is there difference between the reviewing of federal questions and the reviewing of lower courts' errors? In another word, is there any difference between the appeal and writ of certiorari (whether the federal court reviews appeals about the errors of the state courts or lower courts and federal court reviews writ of certiorari about the federal questions)? The Federal Rules of Supreme Court indicate that the writ of certiorari should present and focus on the federal questions. Can I present the errors of the state courts made in my case in my petition for writ of certiorari? If I cannot, can I file my appeal instead of a writ of certiorari to the Federal Supreme Court after the state supreme court denied my PWR?
2. Is there any legal rule which allows the Utah Supreme Court to deny my PWR without giving me any reasons or analysis? What does that mean legally? Is there any meaning which I have not understood in Rule 45 （above) the Utah Supreme Court cites and indicates?
3. Did the Utah court Judges over my case systematically deprive me of my due process rights?
I hope you can find time among your busy work and help me with these questions whose answers I am in great need.
My email address is [email protected]
I will greatly appreciate your help.
respectfully submitted,
J. Hua, pro se litigant and petitioner
Urgent Help-Seeking
To whom it may concern,
I was a student who was wrongly terminated from a Ph.D. program at the University of Utah in 1999. My due process right was deprived of when I was suddenly terminated from the program because the department did not inform me of the coming termiantion and my right to appeal (Also, the termination was made by the Department Graduate Commettee which had no authority to do this according to the Universitity Code. The University Code clearly states that only the PhD student's supervisory comittee can decide the student's study in the program).
From 2000 I started to appeal within the University after my help with the family distress (my mother passed away in 1999). By 2002 March, all the four levels of the University appellate reviewers denied my appeals. Like the department, none of them presented university code or facts to indicate the so-called my "insufficiant progress" (Actually I had passed all the PhD qualified exams and my GPA is 3.75--the full score is 4.0. I also won the graduate fellowship award and taught two courses independantly in the department. The record shows that I was an excellant student).
Then in August 2002, I started my pro se lawsuit against the University of Utah. On Dec. 2002, the Salt Lake County Third District Court dismissed my lawsuit without predudice nor analysis, simply indicating the dismissal is due to my untimely notice of claim and the unavailability of judicial reviews to academic decisions.
On August 2003, I started my second amended lawsuit, suing the defendants in both their official and individual capacities about their unconstitutional deprivation of my rights and their malice. In Dec. 2003, the district court judge decided to have a hearing on Feb.9. On Jan.23, 2004, the district court made an order, indicating both sides should attend the hearing in document only, not in person (since I was in Beijing, China). On Jan. 29, 2004, I express-mailed my detailed and systematic argument to the court and confirmed the receipt of my mail by phone call. The defendants failed to present any documents for the hearing.
However, on March 1, 2004, the court judge made the entry of a short decision and dismissed my case, indicating the defendants appeared at the hearing and I did not so that the decision was made in favor of the defendants. This is completely erroneous! The fact is I attended the hearing by submitting my argument in document and the defendants did not.
Then it was until March 30, 2003 did the court signed the findings of facts and conclusion of laws prepared by the defendants. This greatly prejudiced me, a pro se litigant, far away from the United States (Their international mails unusally take more than 10 days to reach me but the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedures (URAP) demand that the notice of appeal should be filed within 30 days from the entry of the court's decision). Also, it was until April 21, 2004 did the court mail to me their signed copy of their findings of facts and conclusion of laws upon my inquiry over the phone call.
Luckily, I read the URAP and submitted my notice of appeal timely on March 23, 2004.
However, when I was busy preparing and submitting the many appellate documents requiried by the URAP, the Utah Court of Appeals (UCA) issued a Sua Sponty Motion for Summary Disposition to dismiss my appeal. Then I timely filed my response.
On Nov. 2004, the UCA issue a memorandum decision, affirming the district court's dismissal of my case. The main reason the UCA gives is that res judicata bars my relitigation.
In Dec. 2004, I filed my petition for rehearing (PFR) timely. The UCA denied my PFR without giving any reason. Just the docketing information on the court's webpage presents one word "denied".
The UCA's decision indicates:
res judicata bars my relitigation mainly because
1. The parties and privies were the same in the two lawsuits;
2. The issue was fully, competantly and fairly litigated on my first lawsuit and there was a final decision on merits;
3. I did not appeal the district court's decision on my first lawsuit.
I think the UCA's decision erred because the test for res judicata was not met in my case:
1. The parties and privies were not the same in the two lawsuits. I sued defendants in their official capacity in my first lawsuit and in both their official and individual capacities in my second lawsuit;
2. The issue that my due process rights were deprived of was never fully, competantly and fairly litigated on my first lawsuit and there was not a final decision on merits;
3. The district court dismissed my first lawsuit without prejudice and did not inform me that I could appeal their decision due to the Utah Rule of the Administrative Procedure. this clearly indicate I could start my second lawsuit instead of appealing their decision.
I also found a large amount of caselaws indicating I am correct and the UCA's decision is erroneous (I had presented these caselaws in my PWR to the Utah Supreme Court).
Then I filed my petition for writ of certiarori (PWC) in the Utah Supreme Court. I clearly indicate that the UCA's decision is in conflict with many decisions from the appellate or supreme courts and res judicata was misapplied to bar my relitigation and there were systematic errors in the district and appellate courts.
On April 6, 2005, the Utah Supreme Court denied my PWC by simply stating "it is hereby ordered pursuant to Rule 45 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied." I checked the rule 45. It states that "Rule 45. Review of judgments, orders, and decrees of court of appeals. Unless otherwise provided by law, the review of a judgment, an order, and a decree (herein referred to as "decisions") of the Court of Appeals shall be initiated by a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah." I think the Utah Supreme Court's order does not conform to the the Rule 45 of the URAP because it states that the review of the decision of the Court of Appeals shall be initiated by my petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Utah. I had submitted my PWC to the Utah Supreme Court. Therefore, the Court's review of the decision of the Court of Appeals on my case should be initiated. However, the Court denied my PWC and gave neither reasons nor any rules otherwise provided by law.
I think there were systematic errors in the Utah State courts and they were making use of my disadvantaged situation (I am a pro se litigant without any legal background and far away from the United States). During the past years of my lawsuits, I have ovecome many difficulties with working day and night and filed my documents timely with effective arguments and substantive facts while these Utah courts could only make use of the legal procedures, the complicated legal terms which I was not familiar with, and my very tight responsive time to prevent my lawsuit from going on. At last, the the Utah Supreme Court even denied my PWR without giving me any reasons or analysis.
Now I am preparing my new arguments against decisions of the Utah Supreme Court, the Utah appellate court, the district court, and the defendants.
Since I have read many laws (including the federal rules of appellate precedures and the Federal Rules of the Supreme Court) and caselaws. Now I have some questions I hope you can give me help.
1. The Federal Supreme Court reviews appeals or writ of certiorati. In their reviewing, is there difference between the reviewing of federal questions and the reviewing of lower courts' errors? In another word, is there any difference between the appeal and writ of certiorari (whether the federal court reviews appeals about the errors of the state courts or lower courts and federal court reviews writ of certiorari about the federal questions)? The Federal Rules of Supreme Court indicate that the writ of certiorari should present and focus on the federal questions. Can I present the errors of the state courts made in my case in my petition for writ of certiorari? If I cannot, can I file my appeal instead of a writ of certiorari to the Federal Supreme Court after the state supreme court denied my PWR?
2. Is there any legal rule which allows the Utah Supreme Court to deny my PWR without giving me any reasons or analysis? What does that mean legally? Is there any meaning which I have not understood in Rule 45 （above) the Utah Supreme Court cites and indicates?
3. Did the Utah court Judges over my case systematically deprive me of my due process rights?
I hope you can find time among your busy work and help me with these questions whose answers I am in great need.
My email address is [email protected]
I will greatly appreciate your help.
respectfully submitted,
J. Hua, pro se litigant and petitioner