type	Caption	Docket No	Court Below	Petitioner's Counsel	Counsel's Address	Recent Filings	QP
Petitions and applications docketed on July 07, 2026
paid	Amy Arzamendi v. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense	26-20	Fifth Circuit, No. 24-10557 Judgment: October 22, 2025	Edward Scott Lloyd	Lloyd Law Group, PLLC 106 Chester Street, Suite 1 Front Royal, VA 22630	[Petition]	NA
paid	James A. DeLanis v. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC	26-21	Sixth Circuit, No. 23-5948, 23-5939 Judgment: November 24, 2025	Brett Robert Nolan	Institute for Free Speech 1150 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Suite 801 Washington, DC 20036	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition]	NA
paid	Douglas B. Moylan, Attorney General of Guam v. Guam Society of Obstetrician and Gynecologists	26-22	Ninth Circuit, No. 23-15602 Judgment: April 28, 2025	Gonzalo Alberto Gayoso	Office of the Attorney General of Guam 134 W. Soledad Avenue, Suite 412 Hagåtña, GU 96910	[Main Document] [Petition]	NA
paid	TMX Finance Corporate Services, Incorporated v. Wendy S. Spicher, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities	26-23	Fifth Circuit, No. 24-11087 Judgment: January 09, 2026	Misha Tseytlin	Troutman Pepper Locke LLP 111 South Wacker Drive Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606	[Main Document] [Petition]	NA
paid	Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs	26-24	Ninth Circuit, No. 25-7512 Judgment: January 28, 2026	Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva	644 San Antonio Rd. Apt. 104 Palo Alto, CA 94306	[Main Document] [Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. How can a Plaintiff serve the Federal Agency that is the United States Department of Veterans Affairs with a Summons and with process in accordance with 28 U.S. Code § 13891(e)(2) and in accordance with the F.R.C.P. Rule 4()(2)? The plain language of the F.R.C.P. Rule 4(0)(2) says that, in addition to serving the United States, the Plaintiff must send a copy of each to the “Agency” by the registered or certified U.S. mail. However, when I asked Meta AI about how to serve Defendant the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs with process, I got the answer that, in addition to serving the United States, I must send the process to the Office of General Counsel of the USS. Department of Veterans Affairs by the registered or certified U.S. mail to the following address: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of General Counsel \| 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20420. 2. In the employment discrimination lawsuits that involve the activities of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and its Secretary who is being sued in his official capacity and who is a proper Defendant in the Title VII Cause of Action, in \| the ADEA Cause of Action, and in Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Cause of Action, \| should the Courts follow the procedures that are described in 38 CFR § 14.514(a) such as:
paid	Lexon Insurance Company, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.	26-25	Fifth Circuit, No. 24-20347 Judgment: August 19, 2025	Lisa LeCours	Attorney General’s Office The Capitol Albany, NY 12224	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions] [Petition]	NA
ifp	Justin Meyer v. United States	26-5027	Eleventh Circuit, No. 25-10003 Judgment: March 05, 2026	Brenda Greenberg Bryn	Federal Public Defender One East Broward Boulevard Suite 1100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Whether after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (2) If so, whether under the Bruen/Rahimi methodology, the Second Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant like Petitioner with only non-violent priors. 1
ifp	In Re Daniel Clemans	26-5028	NA, No. — Judgment: —	Daniel Clemans	#333945 Lee Adjustment Center 168 Lee Adjustment Center Drive Beattyville, KY 41311	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented Questions Presented For Review 1.) Does a State violate a Father's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights by constructively and effectively terminating his (and Daughter's) Parental / Familial rights via a “No Contact Order” being kept in full force for OVER four years while NEVER having ANY Termination Proceedings and with } NO “clear and convincing evidence” at a minimum to do so ? 2.) Does a “No Contact Order” that completely severs Father and Daughter, being fully enforced for OVER four years and denying ALL requested modifications for reunification, violate Father's (and Daughter's) Fourteenth Amendment Due Process protections and Seventh Amendment right to jury trial when Father was NEVER found to be an “unfit parent” but held a surprise “Adjudication Hearing” WITHOUT Father being present OR given Notice ? 3.) Does a “No Contact Order” that completely severs Father and Daughter, being fully enforced for OVER four years and denying ALL requested modifications, violate Father's (and Daughter's) Fourteenth Amendment Familial protections and guarantees when “the best interests” of Daughter have NEVER been properly assessed by the State Courts, on ANY record or Order beyond a mere mention ? 4.) Does a State Court violate a Father's Fourteenth Amendment Parental protections and guarantees of Due Process and his First Amendment protections of Retaliation when it DENIES Father / Petitioner ANY form of contact between him and his daughter, after OVER four years, solely due to Father / Petitioner “having a pending appeal” AS A MATTER OF RIGHT in an UNRELATED criminal case ? . 5.) Does a State Court violate a Petitioner’s / Father’s (and Daughter’s) Eighth Amendment protections against Cruel and Unusual punishment when it enforces a PROVEN HARMFUL over four-year old No Contact Order with no end date solely due to Petitioner / Father being incarcerated ? 6.) Does a State Court violate a Petitioner’s First Amendment right to redress grievances and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights to “NOTICE” and “OPPORTUNITY” when it DENIES relief fora PROVEN NEVER TIMELY SENT Notice of Entry / ORDER Entered, thus denying Petitioner the opportunity to timely file for Review with the higher Courts ? i
ifp	Uriel Jose Ortega, aka Yuriel Jose Ortega v. United States	26-5029	Ninth Circuit, No. 23-2321 Judgment: June 28, 2024	Uriel Jose Ortega	16405-023 P.O. Box 800 Herlong, CA 96113		NA
ifp	Alan Amron v. 3M Company	26-5031	Second Circuit, No. 25-2401 Judgment: March 20, 2026	Alan Amron	103 Jessup Avenue Box 354 Quogue, NY 11959	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Whether claim preclusion bars a claim based on an opposing party’s post-litigation conduct — specifically, a materially different interpretation of a contractual obligation first asserted after prior litigation has concluded — where that conduct could not have been raised in the earlier action. ,
ifp	Susan Lloyd v. Exton Vet Clinic	26-5032	Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, No. 456 EDA 2024 Judgment: July 02, 2025	Susan Lloyd	55 Stanley Ave. Landisville, PA 17538	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented - ‘ >: QUESTION PRESENTED \| 1. Is Pennsylvania certificate of merit unconstitutional LIST OF PARTIES PETITIONER \| Susan Lloyd : RESPONDENTS . Exton Vet Clinic and Shannon Stanek } The only interested parties are Petitioner Susan Lloyd and \| Respondents Shannon Stanek and Exton Vet Clinic No other party was part of appeals and the rest settled several —. . years ago ) . RELATED CASES . Susan Lloyd v Veterinary Orthopaedic Services, Chester County PA Court of Common Pleas 22-04071 Susan lloyd v Veterinary Orthopaedic Services, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 456EDA2024 \| Susan Lloyd v Veterinary Orthopaedic Services,: Supreme Court of \| Pennsylvania, 482MAL2025 . ¢ \|
ifp	Ohio, ex rel. Malik Allah-U-Akbar v. William R. Niemi, Sheriff, Ashtabula County, Ohio	26-5033	Supreme Court of Ohio, No. 2025-1252 Judgment: December 09, 2025	Malik Allah-U-Akbar	25 W. Jefferson St Ashtabula Jefferson, OH 44047		NA
ifp	Christopher Allen Rochon v. United States	26-5034	Ninth Circuit, No. 25-5735 Judgment: February 27, 2026	John Palmer Rhodes	Federal Defenders of Montana 125 Bank Street Suite 710 Missoula, MT 59802	[Petition] [Appendix]	Question(s) presented QUESTION PRESENTED Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), facially and as applied to Mr. Rochon, violate the Second Amendment? Tl
app	Lisa Ferraro v. United States	26A28	Third Circuit, No. 26-1228 Judgment: —	Richard Elliot Mischel	Richard E. Mischel, P.C. 48 Wall Street - Suite 1203 New York, NY 10005	[Main Document]	NA
app	Michael Kaplon v. Morris Township Police Department	26A29	Third Circuit, No. 25-1751 Judgment: —	George Christopoulos	Law Offices of George Christopoulos, P.C. 250 Moonachie Road Suite 200 Moonachie, NJ 07074	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Terry Wayne Cope v. United States	26A30	Sixth Circuit, No. 24-5382, 24-5451 Judgment: —	Terry Wayne Cope	#06887-032 USP Forrest City Low P.O. Box 9000 Forrest City, AR 72336	[Main Document]	NA
app	Okky Ficrada Jaya v. Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement	26A31	Ninth Circuit, No. 25-3045 Judgment: —	Scott M. Davidson	The Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Ph.D., Esq. 1011 Lomas Boulevard NW Albuquerque, NM 87102		NA
app	Angelos Kolobotos v. City of Dallas, Texas	26A32	Fifth Circuit, No. 25-10512 Judgment: —	Angelos Kolobotos	4848 Lemmon Avenue Suite 405 Dallas, TX 75219	[Main Document] [Lower Court Orders/Opinions]	NA
app	Michael Walsh v. Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission	26A33	Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, No. SJ-2026-0255 Judgment: —	John H. Walsh	Walsh & Son, LLP Post Office Box 9 Lynnfield, MA 01940	[Main Document]	NA