No. 19-881

Joseph Smith, et al. v. Pamela Motley, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-01-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: anecdotal-evidence burden-of-proof civil-rights discriminatory-policing disparate-treatment equal-protection government-treatment ninth-circuit statistical-analysis
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether plaintiffs can establish an Equal Protection Clause violation based solely on anecdotal evidence of differential treatment, without statistical analysis or evidence of differential treatment of similarly situated individuals

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Under existing Ninth Circuit and United States Supreme Court authority, a plaintiff can establish an Equal Protection Clause violation in the context of discriminatory policing by presenting either a statistical analysis showing a disparity in the treatment of disfavored and non-disfavored groups or evidence of instances in which the government treated similarly situated individuals differently, allowing for an inference that this disparity resulted from invidious discrimination. May plaintiffs meet their burden of establishing an Equal Protection Clause violation by a third method, where the plaintiffs have only anecdotal evidence of how the government allegedly treated the disfavored group?

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-30
Waiver of right of respondents Pamela Motley, et al. to respond filed.
2020-01-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 18, 2020)

Attorneys

Joseph Smith, et al.
Scott William DavenportManning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester, LLP, Petitioner
Pamela Motley, et al.
Kevin G. LittleLaw Office of Kevin G. Little, Respondent