No. 18-5460

David Hill v. Brent Reinke, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-08-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: administrative-control-of-facilities baxstrom-v-herold circuit-split constitutional-rights due-process inmate-transfer mental-health mental-health-facility mental-health-facility-transfers prison prison-administration temporary temporary-transfers transfer vitek-v-jones
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2018-10-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Due-process-rights-of-inmates

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Question Presented This case presents a question affecting the daily operation of prisons and jails across the country that has split the circuits: Can a prison or jail, when transferring an inmate to a mental health facility, avoid the due process protections recognized by this Court in Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480 (1980) by (a) transferring the inmate to a mental health facility that is administratively controlled by the prison or jail, or (b) labeling the transfer, which in Mr. Hill’s case lasted 41 days, “temporary”? i

Docket Entries

2018-10-09
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-08-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 5, 2018)

Attorneys

David Hill
Thomas Vernon BurchUniversity of Georgia School of Law, Appellate Litigation Clinic, Petitioner
Thomas Vernon BurchUniversity of Georgia School of Law, Appellate Litigation Clinic, Petitioner