No. 18-5460
David Hill v. Brent Reinke, et al.
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
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)