Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
David Stebbins v. Joshua Moon and Lolcow LLC. Case: 2:24-CV-00140, Southern District of West Virginia. - Acerthorn sues the Farms
In re: David Stebbins
26-1398— Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Docket No.
26-1398
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
6 Kwi 2026
Terminated
26 Maj 2026
Last Filing
9 Cze 2026
Parties (2)
Parties
In re: DAVID A. STEBBINS
Recent Filings
(showing 5 of 20)
#
Date
Description
Filing
20
9 Cze 2026
BILL OF COSTS by Lolcow LLC and Joshua Moon. Date and method of service: 06/10/2026 ecf. [1001995048] [26-1398] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 06/10/2026 05:04 PM]
JUDGMENT ORDER filed. Decision: Petition denied. Originating case number: 2:24-cv-00140. Entered on Docket Date: 05/27/2026. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1001985492] [26-1398] CH [Entered: 05/27/2026 11:11 AM]
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [15]; denying Motion to strike [14]; denying Motion to reconsider [10]; denying Motion for writ of mandamus [2] Originating case number: 2:24-cv-00140. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1001985489] [26-1398] CH [Entered: 05/27/2026 11:09 AM]
RESPONSE/ANSWER by David A. Stebbins to Motion to dismiss appeal [15]. Nature of response: in opposition. [1001972939] [26-1398] David Stebbins [Entered: 05/05/2026 12:58 AM]
RESPONSE/ANSWER by Lolcow LLC and Joshua Moon to Motion to strike [14]. Nature of response: in opposition. [1001971074] [26-1398] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 04/30/2026 09:12 PM]
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Joshua Moon. Was any question on Disclosure Form answered yes? No [1001987301] [26-1556] Matthew Hardin [Entered: 05/29/2026 10:52 AM]
RULE 46 NOTICE issued to Matthew Hardin for Joshua Moon for filing of disclosure form. Requested document due 06/15/2026. [1001987249] [26-1556] CH [Entered: 05/29/2026 10:19 AM]
I eagerly await the Reply to the Defendants reply on the Plaintiffs reply to the Defendants motion. Stabby will want to get the last word in, even when it's not allowed.
I eagerly await the Reply to the Defendants reply on the Plaintiffs reply to the Defendants motion. Stabby will want to get the last word in, even when it's not allowed.
Ok why does FRAP 24(a)(4)(C) even need to exist then? If it isn't saying that this applies anytime in forma pauperis is denied you can do this and this only applies to an appeal that over a denied IFP why does C need to exist? A already covers that scenario. So either there is another scenario that is possible or C is entirely redundant.
The district court can find that a litigant is poor and deny ifp, and the district court can find that the litigant is not poor at all. (C) likely covers the latter. Note the phrase "not otherwise entitled" meaning "not having a right to a certain privilege or benefit". You generally have a right to the privilege of IFP if you are poor, but as the district court noted it is not without limitations. The limitations fit in clause (A) and the poor status (or more so lack of it) fits in clause (C), though in some cases (A) and (C) may become interchangeable (though, notably, not in all).
What further cements this view is that the section speaks in other clauses about actions the district court takes regarding appeals (cert, denial of appeal ifp). This seems to inform us that the rest of the section likewise talks about the same. The doctrine of noscitur a sociis, might be helpful in clearing the issue up. “Under the familiar interpretive canon noscitur a sociis, a word is known by the company it keeps." - Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023). Of course, I will concede that this is used moreso for interpretation of Congressional Laws, but I think it nicely fits regardless. Supreme Court was aware of the doctrine when they wrote the appellate rules, and certainly were aware of them during the many amendments to the rules (last one was last year).
Not really. It is somewhat routine to approve ifp in the same order that dismisses the case both in lower levels and higher ones as well. I think the Supreme Court might be one of the only courts that does not play like that. At any rate, it would require a written and verbose contemplation of the federal rules to count as a hat in the ring, so to speak. That's ignoring the fact that this will likely be unpublished decision, and thereby nonprecedential.
I eagerly await the Reply to the Defendants reply on the Plaintiffs reply to the Defendants motion. Stabby will want to get the last word in, even when it's not allowed.
Generally you have to motion for the ability to file a sur-reply and show good cause, courts do not want endless back-and-forth filings. Original, response, and reply to the response is all they want to see.
Generally you have to motion for the ability to file a sur-reply and show good cause, courts do not want endless back-and-forth filings. Original, response, and reply to the response is all they want to see.
How bold of you to assume Stabby cares one bit about procedure. The only question is whether or not the clerk will docket his sur reply or throw it into the shredder.
How bold of you to assume Stabby cares one bit about procedure. The only question is whether or not the clerk will docket his sur reply or throw it into the shredder.
The clerk will docket it. Hardin will move to strike. The court will moot the whole thing by allowing the appeal to proceed IFP and upholding the IFP denial at the district court, Stabby will apply for a hearing en banc, Hardin will oppose, Stabby will reply, the court will deny that, Stabby will file with the Supreme court in crayon, they will decide that Josh is a meany head and award Stabby eleventy billion dollars.
The clerk will docket it. Hardin will move to strike. The court will moot the whole thing by allowing the appeal to proceed IFP and upholding the IFP denial at the district court, Stabby will apply for a hearing en banc, Hardin will oppose, Stabby will reply, the court will deny that, Stabby will file with the Supreme court in crayon, they will decide that Josh is a meany head and award Stabby eleventy billion dollars.
You joke, but I am firmly convinced clown world applies to Nulls legal shenanigans and the 4th circuit will decide to hold oral arguments on this nonsense. Hardin should at the very least prepare his big red nose and oversized shoes just in case he is called to Richmond.
You joke, but I am firmly convinced clown world applies to Nulls legal shenanigans and the 4th circuit will decide to hold oral arguments on this nonsense. Hardin should at the very least prepare his big red nose and oversized shoes just in case he is called to Richmond.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the other, funnier appeal. I suspect the court won't do anything until the deadlines. Which I'm a little surprised we haven't seen the plaintiff post the required documents yet.
The petition for writ of mandamus was an original action in the circuit court, it's supposed to follow a difference procedure than an appeal. I don't think we can infer how they feel about the latter from the former.
Wrong action, you're thinking about the IFP status appeal, while this is about the Writ of Mandamus that was filed a month before the other one. It gets hard to follow sometimes, given his habit of flooding the court with stupid motions and appeals on everything.
So, what's the odds he appeals and demands a fully published opinion with exact citations to the law? He's had a hard on for that lately, and that this appeals panel issued an unpublished opinion is obviously just further proof they are part of the vast judicial conspiracy to fuck over David Stebbins for being David Stebbins.
The petition for writ of mandamus was an original action in the circuit court, it's supposed to follow a difference procedure than an appeal. I don't think we can infer how they feel about the latter from the former.
No, it's simply that courts routinely do not decide questions that later become moot. It helps that this makes the resolution of the appeal a lot more simple for the court.
Wrong action, you're thinking about the IFP status appeal, while this is about the Writ of Mandamus that was filed a month before the other one. It gets hard to follow sometimes, given his habit of flooding the court with stupid motions and appeals on everything.
Actually @Napoleon III is correct here. It's the court who denied the motion in the wrong appeal. They denied motion to reconsider IFP status in appeal 26-1398 when it was only raised in appeal 26-1556. Further evidence that they gave this very little thought. The appeals aren't consolidated either.
Turns out motion to reconsider IFP was filed in both cases. My bad.
They can't poke a lazy district judge to moot the identical mess in the other appeal. They're going to have to deal with the contested IFP status to appeal his denied IFP status, eventually.
