No. 20-6398

Richard Wesley Allen v. Marcus A. Pollard, Warden

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-rights due-process equal-protection First-Amendment Fourteenth-Amendment free-speech parole prisoner-rights religious-freedom
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2021-01-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does it violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments when a state requires a prisoner to change his or her religion, or to commit acts that are against his or her religion, in order to become eligible for parole?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . i | 4. Does ir wiorate THe First AND 3|| FourteEnrH AMENPMENTS oF “THE _ ___5ll oFEERS PAROLE To PRISONERS, DENIES ___6|| PAROLE TO A PRISONER BECAUSE OF ; THAT PRISONER'S RELIGION 2 = a oll 2. Does it viotate me First anp oll FourteENTH AMENDMENTS oF THE ll U.S. CosstitunaN, WHEN A STAte _J2|| REQUIRES A PRISONER To CHANGE HIS oR __ pl HER RELIGION, OR TO COMM)T ACTS THAT 4 | ARE AGAINST HIS OR HER RELIGION, (N __)} [OSPER 12 BECOME SLITABLE fa PAROLE ¢ — all 3. Is tae US. Surreme Court's —2| OPINION IN Swargt#our v. Cooke (562 US. _ ___)9\| 216, IS1 S.Cr. 859, 178 L.Ed. 2d 732), _ 20ll peFectTive 2 22 | AB How caN_A STATE comely wit ___24\| tHE Eauar Protection CLAUSE OF THE + ___2\|| AMENDMENT, WHEN APPLYING ONE oF — ITS LAWS To A PERSON 2 | B. Can A STATE LEGALIZE AN | BY HIDING THE SPECIFIC REASONS FoR A _ & ATE DECISION, BEHIND CATEGORICAL __ 9|L OPINIONS OF PSYCHIATRISTS oR oll PSvcHoLogisTs “2 de : a ll G6. Can a state LAWEULLY CONDEMN ___/6|| OR PENALIZE OR DEPRIVE A PERSON, FOR alle LUSIONS", WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHICH 2) OF THAT PERSON'S BELIEFS, STATEMENTS, ___ Jol OR TESTIMONIES, ARE BEING CLASS/FIED a | AS DELUSIONS $e ___._1@ a a) (, What_is THE DIFFERENCE 8 BETWEEN A HERESY AND A DELUSION 2 nA e _— — 2 &. IS IT LAWFUL FOR A PERSON To ae BASE A GOVERNMENT DECISION, GN HIS ORs ai EVIDENCE THAT 15 CONTRARY To soME OF | HO AM PERSONA BELLE , 2 : 6||_A PETITION, ON THE BASIS THAT CLAIMS NOT || MADE _IN THAT PETITION WERE THE CLAIMS ___8|| OF THE PETITION, WHILE SAYING NOTHING ___9|| ABouT THE FORMALLY STATER GROUNDS oF, _ JB DECISION THAT DENIES A DUE PROCESS | Al. GLA) lp BE_LAWEULLY USED AS A PRECE4 —5 DENT FOR DENYING CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT ___4o\| pur process ctaims @ all L.. Has eeritioneR mae tHe __1|| "SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF ___ 20 | A_consriruroNAL QGHT" Neepep_ACCoRp= all mg te 28 U.S.C 225362) 2

Docket Entries

2021-01-25
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-09-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 21, 2020)

Attorneys

Richard Wesley Allen
Richard Wesley Allen — Petitioner