No. 19-8879
Gurminder Sekhon v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines judicial-process standing trial-transcript
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the courts violate the petitioner's due process rights by rejecting a defense under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ') Did we reac COURT VLOLATE = EK noneR 5 R6UT T ReESEYT A DEFENSE UNDER BoM SHE wKWHd CESERAL cosStTwWrons! : T ear of TACKSaN ve ViReINW , WAS THERE sureicieeT ” An as \ Evcdevce TH -APPLYINE KO dUAOR NG BUAANCEMETT 1 . 7 counts Six wND SEVEN. 3) yd we coy wrordre Fede pac CopstiWwroy Wie (ce) RO wteyce OW MU ELEMENT ook HE PECCRPRRVE = PENALTY eeovisian ? ) yd We courts Keipyee TH iwsmvcT ON ALO TH ee nemtS OF TRE Ek Cee WT VIOLATE TE CEVETAL ELE NE . q
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-21
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2020-06-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 31, 2020)
Attorneys
Gurminder Sekhon
Gurminder Sekhon — Petitioner
Gurminder Sekhon v. California