No. 22-766

Edward Pinkney v. Berrien County, Michigan, et al.

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-02-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-rights criminal-proceedings due-process fourteenth-amendment fourth-amendment probable-cause section-1983 unlawful-prosecution
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2023-04-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Petitioner's § 1983 claim based on his prosecution, pretrial-criminal-proceedings, trial, conviction, and incarceration for an act the law does not make criminal should be assessed under the Due-Process-Clause of the Fourteenth-Amendment or under the Fourth-Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner was charged, subjected to pretrial proceedings, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for an act that the law does not make criminal. Petitioner brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the prosecuting attorney who procured his unlawful conviction and incarceration violated his due process rights. Despite acknowledging that a conviction and incarceration for a non-criminal act implicates due process, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply and assessed the entirety of Petitioner’s claim under the Fourth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit’s decision deepens a split among the circuits regarding whether the Fourth Amendment exclusively governs claims challenging the lawfulness of a prosecution and pretrial criminal proceedings outside of a defect in the probable-cause determination. Three circuits, including the Sixth Circuit below, have taken the position that the Fourth Amendment governs all such claims, while four circuits have recognized that the Due Process Clause governs at least some such claims. But the Sixth Circuit went even further. Contrary to the decisions of this Court and every circuit court, the court also applied the Fourth Amendment to Petitioner’s challenge to the lawfulness of his conviction and incarceration, well after the point at which the protections of the Fourth Amendment give way to the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The question presented is: Whether Petitioner’s § 1983 claim based on his prosecution, pretrial criminal proceedings, trial, ii conviction, and incarceration for an act the law does not make criminal should be assessed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or under the Fourth Amendment.

Docket Entries

2023-04-17
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2023.
2023-03-28
2023-03-09
Brief of respondents Berrien County, Michigan, et al. in opposition filed.
2023-02-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 17, 2023)
2022-12-06
Application (22A501) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until February 10, 2023.
2022-12-02
Application (22A501) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 14, 2022 to February 10, 2023, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.

Attorneys

Berrien County, Michigan, et al.
Douglas James CurlewCummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, P.L.C., Respondent
Edward Pinkney
Lawrence David RosenbergJones Day, Petitioner