Joshua Jaros

U.S. District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE#: 4:18-cv-00594

Jaros vs. State of Texas et al.                                                          Filed 2/26/2018

Assigned to Judge Gray H. Miller                                           Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Case in other court: County Court at Law 3, Montgomery, Texas, 14-00005-05366

Nature of Suit: 950 Constitutional – State Senate

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Petitioner: Joshua L. Jaros                                  Represented By: Joshua L. Jaros

PRO SE

V.

Respondent: State of Texas

Respondent: Jessica M. Jaros

Respondent: Curtis M. Collum

Notice of Petition and Verified Petition for Warrant of Removal

Notice of Appearance

Notice of Judicial Disqualifications

Notice of Constitutional Questions to Texas State Statutory Schemes

Affadavit

Memorandum of Law Clarifying Established Federal Jurisdiction

Notice Distinguishing the Two Basic Types of Removal; and, Motion for Preliminary Relief in the Alternatives

Notice of Pre-Emptive Constitutional Challenge to the Unlawful Discrimination of Separate Racial Classes via Georgia v Rachel

Notice of Special Pro Se Litigant Rights

Petitioner’s Certificate of Interested Persons and Entities

Notice of Constitutional Questions to Federal Statute 28 USC 1443

Demand for Trial By Jury

Notice of Pending Amendment of Petition Into Complaint

Order for Conference Deadline and Disclosure of Interested Parties

Order Referring Case to United State Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson 

Office of the Attorney General’s Motion for Remand

Notice Concerning Reference to United States Magistrate Judge

Office of the Attorney General’s Motion to Stay Scheduling Conference and Discovery

Order Granting the Office of the Attorney General’s Motion to Stay Conference Scheduling and Discovery

Order to File Response to Motion

Petitioner’s Response to Attorney General’s Motion to Remand

Reply Brief for the Office of the Attorney General’s Motion for Remand

Order of Remand

Petitioner’s Rule 59 Motion to Correct Plain Errors; Motion for Recusal; and, Demand for Investigations

Office of the Attorney General’s Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Rule 59 Motion

• Order
• Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration
• Order Denying Petitioner’s Rule 59 Motion

Request for Judicial Notice, or in the Alternative, Motion for Required Hearing on the Same Issues, and Regardless, Motion for Sanctions for Fraud on the Court

Order Denying Motion to Correct Motion for Recusal Motion for on Same Hearing re: Order of Remand Motion for Sanctions