type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on March 24, 2026
paid	James Everett Hunt v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP	25-1112	Ninth Circuit, No. 24-3568 Judgment: November 10, 2025	Nicholas Ian Porritt	Levi & Korsinsky LLP 1101 Vermont Avenue N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005	[Petition]	NA
paid	Jain-Miecell Roberson v. United States	25-1113	Third Circuit, No. 25-2203 Judgment: December 02, 2025	Jain-Miecell Roberson	5511 Bearcreek Dr. Mechanicsburg, PA 17050	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented \| 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. § 1101 et seg., provides a comprehensive framework for reviewing adverse personnel actions against federal employees, channeling most claims to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) with judicial review exclusively in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017), this Court held that _ “mixed cases’—those combining CSRA-covered per- \| sonnel actions with discrimination claims under fed- eral anti-discrimination laws—must be reviewed in district court under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). However, . this Court has not addressed whether claims alleging constitutional violations (e.g., due process deprivations) \| or state-law torts intertwined with CSRA-covered \| actions constitute “mixed cases” warranting district court jurisdiction, or whether such claims are preempted by the CSRA and funneled exclusively to the MSPB and Federal Circuit. ~The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether a federal employee’s claims alleging constitutional due process violations and state-law torts (e.g., negligence and emotional distress under Penn- sylvania law) arising from a CSRA-covered personnel action (e.g., detail, transfer, or reassignment) constitute a “mixed case” eligible for district court review under Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, or whether such claims are precluded from district court jurisdic- tion by the CSRA’s exclusive remedial scheme. 2. Whether the CSRA precludes district court \| jurisdiction over constitutional claims challenging the validity of a federal statute or regulation governing \
paid	EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC	25-1114	Federal Circuit, No. 2024-1201 Judgment: November 25, 2025	William Peterson Ramey III	Ramey LLP 446 Heights Blvd. Suite 200 Houston, TX 77007	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 1 QUESTION PRESENTED The Ninth Circuit has long held that sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 “must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith,” and that bad faith may be inferred only when a filing is “so completely without merit as to require the conclusion that 1t must have been undertaken for some improper purpose such as delay.” In re Keegan Mgmt. Co. Sec. Litig., 78 F.3d 431, 486-37 (9th Cir. 1996); United States uv. Blodgett, 709 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit has further held that an attorney’s reliance on new, client provided information not previously considered by the district court, even in support of a frivolous position, may be negligent but does not constitute sanctionable bad faith under § 1927. Caputo v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 96 F.4th 1111, 1156—57 (9th Cir. 2024). The Federal Circuit has recognized that regional circuit law governs § 1927 in patent cases. United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., 66 F.4th 13862, 13867 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Yet in this Ninth Circuit case it affirmed § 1927 sanctions without any express finding of subjective bad faith, applying instead an “objective” standard derived from its own precedent, Julien v. Zeringue, 864 F.2d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Whether, in a case arising from the Ninth Circuit, a federal court of appeals may affirm sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 based on an “objective” recklessness standard and without an express finding of — subjective’ bad faith, notwithstanding Ninth Circuit precedent requiring such a finding.
paid	Utah v. Morris T. Mullins	25-1115	Supreme Court of Utah, No. 20200149 Judgment: November 20, 2025	Stanford Edward Purser	Utah Attorney General’s Office 160 E. 300 S., 5th floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 1 Question Presented Whether a sentencing court can impose a sen- tence of life without parole on a juvenile murderer even if the court finds that the juvenile is not per- manently incorrigible or at least suggests that the juvenile is capable of change and reform.
ifp	Shawn Olali v. CVS, Incorporated	25-7093	Fifth Circuit, No. 25-10445 Judgment: August 13, 2025	Shawn Olali	2346 Silver Trace Lane Allen, TX 75013		NA
ifp	Eddie Joe Oglesby, Jr. v. United States	25-7094	Eleventh Circuit, No. 25-12580 Judgment: August 20, 2025	Eddie Joe Oglesby Jr.	#66798-509 FCC - USP2 P.O. Box 1034 Coleman, FL 33521		NA
ifp	Douglas Dean Scyphers v. Washington	25-7096	Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, No. 41141-9-III Judgment: May 15, 2025	Douglas Dean Scyphers	#404358 Coyote Ridge Correctional Center 1301 N. Ephrata Ave. Connell, WA 99326	[Appendix] [Petition]	NA
ifp	Gordon Ray Lewis v. Ryan Sinclair, District Attorney of Hood County, Texas	25-7097	Fifth Circuit, No. 25-10913 Judgment: February 03, 2026	Gordon Ray Lewis	#1877921 Hughes Unit 3201 FM 929 Gatesville, TX 76597	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION(S) PRESENTED \| Did the complaint in this case, factual allegations, if taken as true, state a plausible claim for relief that is plausible on its face, and did the District Court violate Federal Rules and Supreme Court Precedent in dismissing it? \| \| \| 2. Was the complaint in this case sufficient to meet the threshold of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
ifp	Kevin Jean-Giles v. United States	25-7098	Eleventh Circuit, No. 23-12697 Judgment: May 22, 2025	Kevin Jean-Giles	#96881-509 FCI Coleman Low PO Box 1031 Coleman, FL 33521	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented \| QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Government’s deviation from the agreed $65,000 restitution figure in a binding plea agreement—by recommending and securing a $125,000 restitution order based solely on unverified “broker estimates”—violated the promise of good faith and fair dealing required under Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), and United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453 (1985). 2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in holding that any breach of the plea agreement did not affect Petitioner’s substantial rights where the record shows the district court relied on the Government’s misrepresentation in determining restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. 3. Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s decision conflicts with other circuits’ rulings by declining to apply the clarified “average participant” standard set forth in Amendment 821, Part B, to U.S.S.G. §3B1 .2, where Petitioner played a lesser role than the leader but received a nearly identical sentence. it
ifp	Juan Jesus Chaidez v. United States	25-7099	Ninth Circuit, No. 25-1266 Judgment: January 12, 2026	Vicki Marolt Buchanan	Vicki Marolt Buchanan, PC 19201 Sonoma Highway, #243 Sonoma, CA 95476	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented This motion is brought pursuant to Rule 39.1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Dated: March 18, 2026 Respectfully submitted, s/ Vicki Marolt Buchanan Vicki Marolt Buchanan 19201 Sonoma Highway, #243 Sonoma, CA 92660 (707) 343-1907 Counsel for Petitioner Juan Jesus Chaidez
ifp	Andrew Dale Faris v. Merit Systems Protection Board	25-7100	Federal Circuit, No. 2024-2004, 2024-2005 Judgment: September 11, 2025	Andrew Dale Faris	4520 Bellingham Terrace Apt 173 Indianapolis, IN 46221		NA
ifp	Michelle Horvath v. Solar Refrigeration & Appliance Service, Inc.	25-7101	Fifth Circuit, No. 24-30343 Judgment: May 29, 2025	Michelle Horvath	4013 Arizona Ave Kenner, LA 70065		NA
ifp	John Hurt v. Illinois	25-7102	Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, No. 1-23-0808 Judgment: April 04, 2025	John Hurt	#Y57500 Pontiac Correctional Center PO Box 99 Pontiac, IL 61764		NA
ifp	Lucas Tavares v. United States	25-7103	Eighth Circuit, No. 25-1840 Judgment: October 16, 2025	Anne M. Carter	Federal Public Defender’s Office 112 Roberts Street North, Suite 200 Fargo, ND 58102	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED The question presented here is the same as the second question presented in the petition for certiorari in Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1068, which this Court granted for plenary review on October 10, 2025. The question presented 1s: Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object. 1
ifp	Charles Carpenter, Sr. v. Louis DeJoy, former Postmaster General	25-7104	Eighth Circuit, No. 25-1144 Judgment: April 09, 2025	Charles Carpenter Sr.	2414 E Main St. Lot 25 Belleville, IL 62221	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTIONS) PRESENTED \ Whether Pe Cour’ oF AP Realy erred iy ofeimmring Sydsenent QangeLne Perioner bY faring 4 \| MOS favor bie, FO The VON~-Moving 0-4 43 redy red by Fe avon Rule oF Ov Procedure Sto SRccaNYy by ( a Fat hae Lhe Peittioner hod dn qeecoved oes ie ere Oa notion PrDgoms (QOWCP) indory Claim Othe Hae OF 0, Whether a Keder a\ Gdenad’S termina OF OX employee Sor Soilure 40 Polow MSUAAOAS” OT grrendanee \ssves Consyr4ures © resextona S8ScF ination UNE he Rergtitration Ate Werk the GBenc(a) failed Yo Wnlestinke HhesMory, Src aceardns ko PrDweCo\|, (b) Pasessed COnFicking SNPErViso™y Kasesrent$ Cofpsding wre inyorys Vardiey, od (C) \Smared Medco evidence Pai ded +O UNION Stewards and Wran Reswr%e3 Coneireing the emAoyec’S nab t4 to WOrK due 40 she. OurVE Wor. o “ Qqoring CMEC Or oineked Com CnC velarions (2H) MA Cyyid-19 \eaye WDKoco\s nd dig EHS d Paromede Sigkmenss Confiemng the OUIe4’s Feaiy \| \ure +0 1 (e3Pond Fo He inyory SAL ney