No. 23-587

Mark Jakob, et al. v. Clara Cheeks

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-12-01
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: civil-rights due-process evading-arrest medical-care police-apprehension qualified-immunity
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess FourthAmendment Punishment
Latest Conference: 2024-03-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a fleeing suspect has a clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to medical care where there is no evidence any medical care could have altered the outcome after initial onset (impact) of the claimed physical injury

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has held, “The Due Process Clause. . . does require the responsible government agency to provide medical care to persons. . . who have been injured while being apprehended by the police.” However, qualified immunity is not to be defined at a “high level of generality,” but “must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” Here, there is no evidence Decedent, operating a motor vehicle and evading apprehension by law enforcement, survived the impact of his collision with a tree or that any alleged denial of medical care altered the outcome of the collision. The questions presented are: 1) On August 10, 2018, did a fleeing suspect have a clearly established right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to medical care where there is no evidence any medical care could have altered the outcome after initial onset (impact) of the claimed physical injury? 2) As of August 10, 2018, is a plaintiff alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause right to medical attention required to place _ verifiable medical evidence into the record to establish a detrimental effect of a denial of medical care to make a submissible case?

Docket Entries

2024-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-29
2024-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024.
2024-01-31
2023-12-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 2, 2024 to February 1, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-12-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 1, 2024.
2023-11-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 2, 2024)

Attorneys

Clara Cheeks
Wendy LiuPublic Citizen Litigation Group, Respondent
Wendy LiuPublic Citizen Litigation Group, Respondent
Christopher B. BentBent Law, Respondent
Christopher B. BentBent Law, Respondent
Mark Jakob, et al.
Robert Thomas PlunkertPitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Petitioner
Robert Thomas PlunkertPitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Petitioner