No. 18-6231
Dawud Rahim v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon Services
IFP
Tags: administrative-law civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-violation due-process fourth-circuit notice notice-requirement parole parole-revocation procedural-rights standing state-deference
Latest Conference:
2018-12-07
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the rescission procedure of the Petitioner, granted that prior to convening and reconsidering his parole for rescission the Petitioner was constitutionally entitled to notification to be made aware of such adverse action against his liberty interest and heard (if USC Due Process Clause).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the petitioner denied procedural due process when the respondent failed to notify him prior to the reconvening of the Parole Board to reconsider and rescind his parole, not providing him a timely and meaningful opportunity to be present
Docket Entries
2018-12-10
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-07-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2018)
2018-06-08
Application (17A1347) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 27, 2018.
2018-05-14
Application (17A1347) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 28, 2018 to July 27, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Dawud Rahim
Dawud Rahim — Petitioner