No. 19-8195

Alens Charles v. Ric L. Bradshaw, Sheriff, Palm Beach County, Florida

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-04-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: assault civil-rights-act-of-1991 criminal-law criminal-statute due-process extraterritoriality federal-government federal-officers general-intent specific-intent statute-of-limitations statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2020-06-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 18 U.S.C. §111 the dismissal was a specific-intent

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED 18 U.S.C. §111 criminalizes “assaulting, or impeding certain victim or” of the federal government. As ED CARNES explained below (and the US District Court southern of Florida. The dismissal matters because—among other things—defendant motion to dismiss Petitioner claim here was accused of timely services and precluded from offering any diminished-capacity defense on the sole ground that §111 is a general-intent. The question presented is: Whether 18 U.S.C. §111 the dismissal was a specific-intent. Does the limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?

Docket Entries

2020-06-08
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.
2020-05-06
Brief of respondent Ric L. Bradshaw, Palm Beach County Sheriff in opposition filed.
2019-12-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 6, 2020)

Attorneys

Alens Charles
Alens Charles — Petitioner
Alens Charles — Petitioner
Ric L. Bradshaw
Carri S. LeiningerWilliams, Leininger and Cosby, P.A., Respondent
Carri S. LeiningerWilliams, Leininger and Cosby, P.A., Respondent