No. 23-6620
Bruce A. Quarles v. Joseph Terra, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Phoenix, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-procedure constitutional-rights diligence-requirement due-process ex-post-facto federal-rules-of-civil-procedure rule-60 rule-60(d)(1) timely-filing
Latest Conference:
2024-03-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
IS AN IMPOSITION OF A DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT UPON A TIMELY FILED FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(d)(1) MOTION A VIOLATION OF THE RULE?
DOES AN EX POST FACTO IMPOSITION OF A DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT UPON A TIMELY FILED RULE 60(d)(1) MOTION AND DENYING THE MOTION BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN FILED SOONER WITHOUT PROVIDING PETITIONERS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY THE MOTION WAS NOT FILED SOONER VIOLATE THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is an imposition of a diligence requirement upon a timely filed Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d)(1) motion a violation of the rule?
Docket Entries
2024-03-18
Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2024-02-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2024.
2024-02-15
Waiver of right of respondent Joseph Terra, Supt. SCI Phoenix, et al. to respond filed.
2023-12-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 29, 2024)
Attorneys
Bruce A. Quarles
Bruce A. Quarles — Petitioner
Joseph Terra, Supt. SCI Phoenix, et al.
Nancy Winkelman — District Attorney's Office, Respondent