No. 22-6705

Charles Wesley Clearwater v. K. Bennett, Warden

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-02-06
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-sentencing due-process inmate-rights rdap rdap-program residual-clause time-credit vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2023-03-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Is it a violation of an inmate's Constitutional Rights to due process to use the Residual Clause criteria to deny him from receiving the one-year time credit incentive for completing RDAP after the Supreme Court has determined that the Residual Clause is unconstitutionally vague in multiple cases?

Question Presented (from Petition)

No question identified. : : Is it a violation of an inmates Constitutional Rights to due process, to use the Residual Clause criteria to deny him from receiving the on year time credit incentive for completing RDAP? And after the Supreme Court. has "determined that the Residual Clause is unconstitutionally vague in multiple cases? : : ‘ aye -2© 2008 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. Use of this product is subject to the restrictions and terms and conditions of the Matthew Bender Master Agreement.

Docket Entries

2023-03-06
Petition DENIED.
2023-02-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/3/2023.
2023-02-08
Waiver of right of respondent K. Bennett, Warden to respond filed.
2022-10-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 8, 2023)

Attorneys

Charles Wesley Clearwater
Charles Wesley Clearwater — Petitioner
Charles Wesley Clearwater — Petitioner
K. Bennett, Warden
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent