Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Daniel Montes, Jr., Petitioner v. Bertha A. Tibbs

Is?

'l

l

No.

'^‘IJitiirie Court, (Xs

F/LED

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES

Daniel Montes, Jr.,

Petitioner,

v.

Bertha A. Tibbs,

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

/s/ DANIEL MONTES, JR.

Petitioner pro se

Esq. Bugambilias y Belmar

Casa Blanca de 3 pisos

Colonia Santa Maria

Santa Maria Colotepec

Oaxaca Mexico 70934

ejiditarios@gmail.com

(956) 303-7096 US Voip

SEP 2 6 2024

HgCEQFTHECfPft*

11

THREE QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.

In Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823

(1969), this Court held that:

“where the transfer of a claim is absolute, with

the transferor retaining no interest in the

subject matter, then the transfer is not

improperly or collusively made, regardless of the

transferor’s motive”,n. 9 (citations omitted).”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld

that the Plaintiff’s absolute assignment was

improper.

This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth

Circuit’s decision conflicts with this Court’s binding

precedent in Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823

(1969), footnote 9 (citations omitted)?

In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

(1986), this Court held that:

2.

“The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the

entry of summary judgment, after adequate time

for discovery and upon motion..”,at 322-326.

Ill

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld

summary judgment where the pro se Plaintiff was not

given proper notice, was taken by complete surprise,

not afforded any discovery, and was not permitted

to file any evidence in response to the converted

summary judgment motion.

This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth

Circuit’s decision conflicts with this Court’s binding

precedent in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

(1986) at 322-326 and with Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 56(c)?

3.

Did the Fifth Circuit add to the recurring

conflict for the lack of a uniform test standard for 28

U.S.C. 1359, by affirming the Plaintiff’s absolute

assignment as improper based on a legally deficient

unpublished non binding“guide”, where in other

circuits the case would have permitted the case to

proceed?

This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth

Circuit’s decision conflicts with other circuits due to

the lack of a uniform eight test factor standard for 28

U.S.C. 1359?

iv

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE

29.6 STATEMENT

Petitioner (plaintiff-appellant in the court of appeals)

isDaniel Montes, Jr., a foreign sovereign state citizen.

Respondent (defendant-appellee in the court of

appeals) is Bertha A. Tibbs,a resident of Texas.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS

United States District Court (S.D. Texas): Montes v.

Tibbs, No. 4:23-cv-01352 (April 18th, 2024).

United States Court of Appeals (5th Cir.): Montes v.

Tibbs, No. 24-20135 (Sept. 4th, 2024).

V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

..iv, 1

Opinions below...........

Table of Authorities...

vi

Petition for Certiorari

1

Jurisdiction..................

2

Constitutional and statutory provisions involved.2

Statement................................................................ . 2

Reasons for granting the petition......................... 2

Summary reversal is appropriate to address the

Fifth Circuit’s disregard for binding precedent

and reaffirm the rule of law.................................... 3

Plenary review is warranted in the alternative....5

Conclusion

6

Appendix..................................................................... 8

Table of Appendices.................................................. 9

APPENDIX A — Denial of Petition for

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, USCA 5th

Cir, Sept 4th, 2024............................................... la

APPENDIX B — Judgment Affirmed as

Modified, USCA 5th Cir, Aug 16th, 2024........ 3a

APPENDIX C — Denial of Reconsideration,

USDC SDTX, April 18th, 2024......................... 12a

APPENDIX D — Order and Final Judgment,

USDC SDTX, March 14th, 2024...................... 23a

APPENDIX E — Memorandum and Order,

USDC SDTX, MARCH 14TH, 2024................. 25a

APPENDIX F — Declaration of Daniel Montes,

Jr.

34a

VI

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown &

Yellow Taxicab Co.,276 U. S. 518(1928).

4

4

Bobby v. Mitts, 563 U.S. 395, 399 (2011).

Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823

(1969)

ii,2,3,4,5,6

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317

(1986).................................................

ii,iii,3,5,6

Cross v. Allen, 141 U. S. 528(1891)

4

Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc, v. Brown,.

4

565 U.S. 530, 531 (2012).............. ...................

Montes v. Tibbs, Fifth Circuit (2024)......... iVjl

Montes v. Tibbs, SDTX (2024)...................... 'iv> 1

Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am.

Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484

5

(1989).....................................................................

Stephen M. Shapiro, et al., Supreme

Court Practice § 5.12(a) (10th ed.

2013)....................................................................... 3

South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192

U. S. 286(1904)................................................... 4

Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K.

Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535

(1983)..................................................................... 5

Vll

Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 659-60

(2014).................................................................... 4

William Baude, Foreword: The Supreme

Court’s Shadow Docket, 9 N.Y.U. J.L. &

Liberty 1, 2 (2015)............................................ 3

Williamson v. Osenton,232 U. S. 619

(1914).................................................................... 4

Constitution, statutes, and regulation:

U.S. Const. Amend. V and XIV, (Due

Process Clauses)......................................

28 U.S.C. 1254(1)....................................

28 U.S.C. 1359.........................................

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c)

Doctrine of Stare Decisis.......................

6

2

iii,2,5

ii,iii,6

2

1

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Daniel Montes, Jr., (petitioner pro plaintiff-appellant)

respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review

the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit in this case.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions of the court of appeals Montes v. Tibbs

(Pet. App. la-lla).

The opinions of the district court Montes v. Tibbs

(Pet. App. 12a-33a).

2

JURISDICTION

Denial of panel rehearing and rehearing en banc from

the court of appeals was entered on September 4th,

2024.The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under

28 U.S.C. 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Pertinent constitutional and statutory provisions are

the due process clauses in the US Constitution and

28 U.S.C. 1359.

STATEMENT

This case is about the Fifth Circuit knowingly

ignoring and invalidating by omission this court’s

precedent in two instances, and recurring conflict

from the lack of a uniform test standard for 28 U.S.C.

1359. The Fifth Circuit violates with impunity the

Doctrine of Stare Decisis, the foundation of the

rule of law.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Certiorari should be granted because the decision

below conflicts with Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S.

3

823 (1969) footnote 9 (citations omitted) and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) in its

result and its reasoning. In light of the Court of

Appeals’s disregard for this Court’s binding and

squarely on point precedent, summary reversal is

appropriate. At minimum, plenary review is

warranted.

SUMMARY REVERSAL IS APPROPRIATE TO

ADDRESS THE FIFTH CIRCUIT’S

DISREGARD FOR BINDING PRECEDENT

AND REAFFIRM THE RULE OF LAW

The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be

summarily reversed because the decision below

conflicts with Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823

(1969) footnote 9 (citations omitted) and Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) and

undermines its authority. Summary reversal is

appropriate where a lower court decision is “so

clearly erroneous, particularly if there is a

controlling Supreme Court precedent to the

contrary, that full briefing and argument” is

unnecessary. Stephen M. Shapiro, et al., Supreme

Court Practice § 5.12(a) (10th ed. 2013).

Summary reversal is also a means to “enforce the

Court’s supremacy over recalcitrant lower

courts.” William Baude, Foreword: The Supreme

4

Court’s Shadow Docket, 9 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 1,

2 (2015). On numerous occasions, this Court has

summarily reversed lower court decisions that conflict

with a prior holdings of this Court. Summary reversal

is especially appropriate where a lower court has

circumvented a prior decision of this Court on a

matter of national importance that has generated

substantial opposition. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S.

650, 659-60 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily

vacating decision that “reflectfedj a clear

misapprehension” of “precedents”concerning the

legal standard for summary judgment); Marmet

Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530, 531

(2012) (per curiam) (summarily vacating

decision that “misreadf ] and disregardfed] the

precedents of this Court” interpreting the

Federal Arbitration Act); Bobby v. Mitts, 563 U.S.

395, 399 (2011) (per curiam) (summarily

reversing decision that circumvented recent

precedent that “all but decided the question

presented”).

This Court decided Caribbean

Mills,Inc., 394 U.S. 823 (1969) footnote 9, e.g.

Cross v. Allen,141 U. S. 528 (1891); South Dakota

v. North Carolina,192 U.S. 286(1904); Black &

White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab

Co.,276 U. S. 518 (1928); cf. Williamson v.

Osenton,232 U. S. 619 (1914) initially over one

hundred and thirty three (133) years ago, and

5

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) thirty

eight (38) years ago. The decision below, by holding

the opposite of Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823

(1969) footnote 9, (citations omitted) and Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) and resting on

legal conclusions that this Court rejected, undoes this

Court’s substantial undertaking.

PLENARY REVIEW IS WARRANTED IN THE

ALTERNATIVE

Plenary review at minimum is warranted. The

decision below renders the holdings of Caribbean

Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823 (1969) footnote 9

(citations omitted) and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317 (1986) at best uncertain, and lower

courts continue to be in recurring conflict due to the

lack of a uniform test standard for 28 U.S.C. 1359.

Whether a decision of this Court is to be modified in

any respect, however, is this Court’s solemn

responsibility after full consideration of the merits.

See Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K.

Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 535 (1983) (per curiam)

(“[OJnly this Court may overrule one of its

precedents.”). It is not the prerogative of lower

courts to reform this Court’s precedent by evolving,

watering down, by omission, or distinguishing its

holdings to the point of irrelevancy. See Rodriguez

6

de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S.

477, 484 (1989) (criticizing lower court for

overruling binding precedent “on its own

authority”). Denial of certiorari would leave the

irredeemably flawed decision of the Court of Appeals

on the books, and it would weaken the constitutional

protections recognized in Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394

U.S. 823 (1969) footnote 9 (citations omitted) and

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) —at

the very least— in Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi.

Granting the petition for certiorari and reversing the

Fifth Circuit’s decision requires this Court to break no

legal ground. It nevertheless is critically important

that the Court act and reverse the Fifth Circuit’s

decision. Only reversal, whether by summary

disposition or after plenary review, will address the

significant threat to the rule of law posed by the

decision below and preserve the constitutional rights

of diversity plaintiffs, their absolute assignments,

their rights under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 56(c), Supreme Court precedent, and the

due process clauses under the U.S. Constitution.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the

petition for a writ of certiorari and summarily

reverse. Alternatively, the Court should grant the

7

petition and conduct plenary review. If the petition is

granted and the case is vacated and or reversed, that

the petitioner requests all of his costs of appeal be

levied against the defendant respondent.

Dated November 18th, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ DANIEL MONTES, JR.

Petitioner pro se

Esq. Bugambilias y Belmar

Casa Blanca de 3 pisos

Colonia Santa Maria

Santa Maria Colotepec

Oaxaca Mexico 70934

ejiditarios@gmail.com

(956) 303-7096 US Voip

8

APPENDIX

!

;

: