No. 20-1609
David R. Seaton v. Blake Johnson, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: constitutional-rights de-escalation electronic-evidence evidence-standards police-brutality pro-se-litigants pro-se-litigation recent-rulings summary-judgment use-of-force
Latest Conference:
2021-06-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Should police brutality be constitutionally protected?
2. Do regulations ordering police to de-escalate confrontations instill an affirmative duty for police to de-escalate confrontations?
3. Does electronic evidence submitted by police override contradicting eye-witness accounts so dispositively so as to guarantee summary judgement as a matter of law for the government?
4. Should We the People adjudicate the use of state violence or should that be left to experts?
5. Should courts should continue to place their thumb on the scale in favor of the police over pro se litigants?
6. Should courts be permitted to ignore recent rulings of this Court?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Question not identified
Docket Entries
2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2021-06-02
Waiver of right of respondent Blake Johnson, et al. to respond filed.
2021-05-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 18, 2021)
Attorneys
Blake Johnson, et al.
Loren L. AliKhan — D.C. Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
David R. Seaton
David R. Seaton — Petitioner