Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Does mandatory, involuntary commitment of an incompetent defendant to the Bureau of Prisons for the sole purpose of evaluating whether he can attain competency violate substantive Due Process absent some individual showing that this "massive curtailment of liberty" will materially assist in the evaluation?
II. Do the Mathews v. Eldridge procedural due process factors require basic procedures (e.g., notice and a hearing addressing the individual circumstances) before the government determines that involuntary pretrial commitment is necessary to evaluate or restore an incompetent defendant?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does mandatory, involuntary commitment of an incompetent defendant to the Bureau of Prisons for the sole purpose of evaluating whether he can attain competency violate substantive Due Process absent some individual showing that this 'massive curtailment of liberty' will materially assist in the evaluation?
2020-02-28
Reply of petitioner Gregory Alan McKown filed. (Distributed)
2020-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.
2020-02-12
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2020-01-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 12, 2020.
2020-01-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2020 to February 12, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-12-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 13, 2020.
2019-12-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 13, 2019 to January 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-11-13
Response Requested. (Due December 13, 2019)
2019-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-10-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-10-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 25, 2019)