# Petition — Dacey v. Cotter

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0283%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1980
- **Citation:** 449 U.S. 982

## Text

2 - rr Tr Court, U.S.
i Pe
8 0-262 ”
AUG 111980

MICHAEL KUvAK, JR., CLER

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1980

No.

NORMAN F. DACEY
Petitioner

V.
JOHN P. COTTER, JOSEPH W. BOGDANSKI,
ALVA P. LOISELLE, JOSEPH S. LONGO

and ELLEN A. PETERS
Respondents

and

NORMAN F. DACEY
Petitioner

V.

HENRY J. NARUK
Respondent

PETITION FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
WITH APPENDIX

Norman F. Dacey
2926 Fairfield Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06605

Petitioner, pro se

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1, Was the successful plaintiff in an earlier trial
of a libel action against the Connecticut Bar
Association denied due process in the retrial
of that action when a state trial court judge,
who would have been required to contribute to
the damages and costs awarded to such plaintiff,
declined to observe Connecticut's statutory pro-
hibition against any judge sitting on an action in
which he ''may be required to contribute to the
damages, costs or expenses" thereof when, in
fact, a number of non-disqualified judges were
available and the Chief Administrative Judge of
the State had given the plaintiff an assurance
that a non-disqualified judge would be named
to preside on the case?

2. Is the successful Plaintiff in an earlier trial
of a libel action against the Connecticut Bar
Association being denied due process in the
retrial of that action when the five justices of
the Connecticut Supreme Court, each of whom
would be required to contribute to such Plaintiff's
judgment and damages, have declined to observe
Connecticut's statutory prohibition against any
judge sitting on an action in which he 'may be
liable to contribute to the damages, costs and
expenses'' thereof, when, in fact, they had the
option of recusing themselves and allowing the
governor to appoint five temporary Supreme
Court judges to sit in their stead or exercising
their own statutory powers to appoint non-dis-
qualified judges to sit in their place and hear the
appeal?

3. Did the District Court err in denying its own
-le-

its own jurisdiction in a Title 42 U.S.C. Sections
1983 and 1985 action properly requesting injunc-
tive relief from such unconstitutional acts upon
the part of state courts, whichacts were causing
great and immediate irreparable harm to the
Plaintiff?

OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS
OF OPINIONS DELIVERED IN COURTS
BELOW

See Statement of Case and Appendix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented For Review......

Official and Unofficial Reports of
any Opinions Delivered in the
Courts Below = =:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CORT 2 on™ "76

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUD.. - 2 2 rehearing having been 2ilsd Lereia
by > :intiff-apcelient oro se. . :
Upon comsideration therec?, it is

Ordered that said petition te and hereby is :.,;

a..Ganiel Fesere, C2

emer eee a

| BEST GOPY AVAILABLE

webee

o*

ee ee ee ee ee

=i) See
Sam ee

J-2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_0283%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.