No. 20-867

Shalini Ahmed v. United States

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: appellate-jurisdiction bond-forfeiture civil-procedure civil-proceeding civil-rights cohen-doctrine criminal-case criminal-law due-process surety-intervention
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2021-02-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is a bond forfeiture proceeding sufficiently civil in nature such that it falls under certain rules governing civil actions and should be treated as a civil proceeding, though it arises from an underlying criminal case?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: Is a bond forfeiture proceeding sufficiently civil in nature such that it falls under certain rules governing civil actions and should be treated as a civil proceeding, though it arises from an underlying criminal case? Does a surety have the right to intervene at the inception of any bond forfeiture proceeding, including when the government moves for declaration of bond forfeiture? Is a determination of the nature of a bond forfeiture proceeding separate and final from the underlying merits of the bond forfeiture, such that it falls under the Cohen doctrine established by this Court and thus appellate jurisdiction applies?

Docket Entries

2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-11
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-12-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Shalini Ahmed
Shalini Ahmed — Petitioner
Shalini Ahmed — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent