No. 20-1276

Stephen B. McKinney v. Felicia Harkness Dean, Guardian and Conservator for and on Behalf of Janel Harkness, an Incapacitated Adult

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: circuit-court-of-appeals clearly-established-law deliberate-indifference due-process intent-to-harm parratt-hudson parratt-hudson-doctrine qualified-immunity substantive-due-process
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2021-06-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the Circuit Court of Appeals err in failing to apply the Parratt-Hudson doctrine to the Respondent's substantive due process claim?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the Circuit Court of Appeals err in failing to apply the Parratt-Hudson doctrine to the Respondent’s substantive due process claim? 2. Did the Circuit Court of Appeals err in denying Petitioner’s qualified immunity defense by applying the “deliberate indifference” standard rather than the “intent to harm” standard and by finding that the Petitioner’s conduct violated “clearly established” law in the absence of authority that would have given the officer “fair notice” that his conduct was unconstitutional?

Docket Entries

2021-06-21
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
2021-05-12
Brief of respondent Felicia Dean in opposition filed.
2021-04-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 14, 2021.
2021-04-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 14, 2021 to May 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 14, 2021)

Attorneys

Felicia Dean
Jordan Christopher CallowayMcGowan, Hood & Felder LLC, Respondent
Jordan Christopher CallowayMcGowan, Hood & Felder LLC, Respondent
Stephen B. McKinney
Andrew Frederick LindemannLindemann & Davis, P.A., Petitioner
Andrew Frederick LindemannLindemann & Davis, P.A., Petitioner