No. 19-6892

John R. Van Orden v. Mark Stringer, et al.

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-12-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-court-split civil-commitment due-process fundamental-rights liberty-interest mental-health-confinement sexually-violent-predator shocks-the-conscience substantive-due-process
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

What is the proper analysis to review a substantive due process claim? Is it the conjunctive or disjunctive analysis?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. What is the proper analysis to review a substantive due process claim? Is it the conjunctive or disjunctive analysis? Il. Whether or not the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Petitioner failed to show the evidence was_ conscienceshocking. . II. Is the loss of liberty due to involuntary commitment to a mental health center as a sexually violent predator a fundamental liberty interest? Iv. Whether a State can civilly confine a group of convicted sex offenders that have completed their prison terms on the basis of what they might do in the future. i

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2019-12-16
Waiver of right of respondents Mark Stringer, et al. to respond filed.
2019-12-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 9, 2020)

Attorneys

John R. V. Orden
John R. Van Orden — Petitioner
John R. Van Orden — Petitioner
Mark Stringer, et al.
Zachary M. BluestoneMissouri Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Zachary M. BluestoneMissouri Attorney General's Office, Respondent