Whether the 8th Circuit's decision is contrary to Kingsley

QUESTION PRESENTED. The question presented is whether the 8" Circuits’ decision is contrary to this Court’s decision in Kingsley. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision by the 7" Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Dist. Court for the District of Wisconsin. This Court held that in a civil commitment context the standard for excessive force was “objectively unreasonableness.” Since then there has been numerous cases around the Country that have been confronted with this issue, but have adhered to this Court’s holding in Kingsley. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and now the 8" _ Circuit Court of Appeals have all but washed this Court’s decision in Kingsley down the toilet. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Anthony C. Green petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeal for the Eighth Circuit in Green v. Lake, et al. 19-2001. OPINIONS BELOW The Judgment of the District Court is reported at 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48762 (U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Minn. Marc. 25, 2019). Petitioner does not have the 8" Circuit Court of Appeals judgment, but was affirmed on February 18, 2020. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was entered on February 18, 2020. Petitioner was unable to timely file a petition for re hearing enbanc. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). 2 hn eo: ™ CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part: “[NJor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” INTRODUCTION This case involves the scope and strength of the bedrock constitutional principle that mandates that the deliberate misconduct for those assigned to care for the civilly committed be assessed under an objective reasonableness standard. The 8" Circuit and the District Court of Minnesota has decided to go against this Court’s decision in Kingsley and state that the objective reasonable standard does not apply to those civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender 7 Program (MSOP). The fatal flaw of the lower court’s decisions, and the crux of this Petition, is its failures—by implementation to : meaningfully ensure that objective reasonableness standard is used and . not the subjective standard component. After lengthy court proceedings regarding this issue (the case was stayed prior because of . Karsjens et al. v. Piper, et al., 845 F.3d 394 (8" Cir. 2017). Now is the particularly important time for this Court to set out clearly that the objective reasonableness standard must apply to all persons civilly committed, no matter where they are committed. i.e. Wisconsin, Washington State, etc. the Eight Circuit’s ruling makes clear that it will ‘not abide or apply by the standards set out by this Court in Kingsley. Such a ruling cannot stand under our Constitution, especially when its subjects are some of the most politically powerless, despised, and vulnerable among us. 3