No. 20-7434

William Dawes v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2021-03-11
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process forced-medication judicial-discretion judicial-oversight legal-incompetence mental-health prison punishment-standards state-procedure
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-05-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the involuntary medication of a prisoner without judicial oversight or even a court order violates the 5th Amendment's due process protections

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | face, P.O. UGOL gives the right te invol : preceduces heut Cah one shea rave uantary medicate lamates without juditeal Oe even a court of +. ocumentiy evidance when thece iS no Cou'st'ce oter® . at eputy te ef os a witness 3 sudictaf ° Zs nota Kangaroo couck OSS in A yudicte proceeding? 3 ar, che Conct that jacks -How Many times Can } . one-off mare gublic otbiccals? aw IA : : the S** Amendmeat? wiper MGE FG Vad pon an indiurdual wethaat vielat 4. Row is p _ C2602 legal for ) unishment for cei State 7 pen's cone, When Py : how bony one is Suspase te be medicated or an aa P.c. does it . ad : \ € “ © veo: Y +& deates Due Process! ° ts PLC. 1368 legal dee toi inadmisable j © ignarance of the lewis ; . a be He in cauct because « psychiatrist ca t neereese. and apeculaHon as alin tuawe which can cause be wnat prove defendant dees nat have a ~ . Megel substances such os methnphe! ~ “her Vaices and see things, pest aS S: at . COOm-mes. nce, o A psychobic medicabians are nat FDA d What 1s Sespose +e protect ani diyid { € “Pree for exerytady due to side effets a atte ‘ te covec wp etines by state employees! can ane, lawyers, and o€fictals whowlgh DB. Since his ill : . v ie to . ae u iMegel te pass judgemeaF and sentence upon an incompetent tk of insight means sam . « perenl persan and Manael’” how ace i eas incom peteat according +. CDCR Depart £0, se ; inmates not Hesell incarcerated? pertmest pecedfor ince, Mamen over the age of 18 y age of 18 be giver ThE same eight? gek on abortion, why Cannak wamen under the ‘ i : , : a ; ot 4 Aedtas Carpus Mean duce th " ‘ chad nee “lecd ane? ANS pla e@ € body; whet is mare evidance of Tope q leve 10. Does nat ~ No’ mean No” ? IL. Since there is n@ statute al limifetiens an mucd et should n thy, an appeal! | ete ¢ of the some be given +9 12. When pad : + owsges Cannat upheld the law arc -the ca J « Se ee Tn ot © nrbitution of the lneted States wh ot rhe lenvted States? rs fee ag betas deflect as woitten in th 7 13. What is the di ates! : in in The Const hurtion 5 13. What is the ditterance between forcin and forcing 0. person ng a women to have a child she do . v) ? to teKe drugs they do not need? € does not want

Docket Entries

2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-02-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 12, 2021)

Attorneys

William Dawes
William Dawes — Petitioner
William Dawes — Petitioner