No. 24-6946
Logan Dyjak v. Stacey Horstman, et al.
IFP
Tags: bodily-movement constitutional-claim due-process fourteenth-amendment procedural-rights summary-judgment
Latest Conference:
2025-06-05
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether a court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e)(2) when awarding summary judgment.
2. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires individualized determination regarding restrictions on the bodily movement of the jail.
3. Whether the body's conscience—rather than "shocks the conscience" standard—applies to mental health treatment claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires individualized determinations for bodily movement restrictions and whether procedural due process requires an opportunity to respond to summary judgment motions
Docket Entries
2025-06-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-05-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/5/2025.
2025-02-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 8, 2025)
Attorneys
Logan Dyjak
Logan Dyjak — Petitioner