No. 19-6892
John R. Van Orden v. Mark Stringer, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: circuit-court-split civil-commitment due-process fundamental-rights liberty-interest mental-health-confinement sexually-violent-predator shocks-the-conscience substantive-due-process
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. What is the proper analysis to review a substantive due process claim? Is it the conjunctive or disjunctive analysis?
II. Whether or not the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Petitioner failed to show the evidence was conscience-shocking.
III. Is the loss of liberty due to involuntary commitment to a mental health center as a sexually violent predator a fundamental liberty interest?
IV. Whether a State can civilly confine a group of convicted sex offenders that have completed their prison terms on the basis of what they might do in the future.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What is the proper analysis to review a substantive due process claim? Is it the conjunctive or disjunctive analysis?
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2019-12-16
Waiver of right of respondents Mark Stringer, et al. to respond filed.
2019-12-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 9, 2020)
Attorneys
John R. V. Orden
John R. Van Orden — Petitioner
Mark Stringer, et al.
Zachary M. Bluestone — Missouri Attorney General's Office, Respondent