No. 22-468
Daniel James Altstatt v. City of Sacramento, California
Tags: bajakajian-factors civil-penalty civil-rights due-process eighth-amendment excessive-fines excessive-fines-clause fourteenth-amendment incorporation-doctrine united-states-v-bajakajian
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment
DueProcess Punishment
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state court erred by failing to apply the factors set out in United States v. Bajakajian in evaluating whether a civil penalty is unconstitutionally excessive
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Following the Court’s ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019), which held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, does a state court err by failing to apply any of the factors set out in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) in evaluating whether a civil penalty is unconstitutionally excessive?
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-02-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-02-01
Reply of petitioner Daniel James Altstatt filed. (Distributed)
2023-01-17
Brief of respondent City of Sacramento, California in opposition filed.
2022-12-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 18, 2023.
2022-12-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 19, 2022 to January 18, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-11-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 19, 2022)
Attorneys
City of Sacramento, California,
Daniel James Altstatt
Thomas Quaid Swanson — Hilgers Graben PLLC, Petitioner
Thomas Quaid Swanson — Hilgers Graben PLLC, Petitioner