Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Chad Chronister, Sheriff, Hillsborough County, Florida v. Doris Freyre, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 17-11231 · judgment December 14, 2018


Certiorari denied · October 7, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

The Child Protective Investigations Division (“CPID”) of the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (“HCSO”) received a report of prospective child abuse, abandonment and/or neglect from the Florida Department of Children and Families’ (“DCF”) Abuse Hotline regarding Doris Freyre’s disabled daughter, MAF. After investigating the allegations and attending a multi-agency staffing, probable cause existed to remove MAF from her mother’s custody. This removal was confirmed the following day by the Honorable Vivian Corvo at a shelter hearing, wherein Doris Freyre was represented by counsel. MAF was placed into the State’s custody pending reunification with Doris Freyre, only if certain conditions could be met. However, the service providers from Hillsborough Kids, Incorporated (“HKI”) and other state entities could not meet those conditions. Ultimately, the service providers from HKI in conjunction with other governmental agencies such as Children’s Medical Services (“CMS”) and Tampa General Hospital (“TGH”) were only able to secure placement at a skilled nursing facility in Miami, as assessed and recommended by the state’s medical professionals and MAF’s attending physician. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the court of appeals violated this Honorable Court’s “fundamental rule of judicial restraint” by failing to address whether Doris Freyre had standing to bring an associational ADA claim

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jason Gerard Gordillo
Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

For respondent
Matthew Wilson Dietz
Disability Independence Group, Inc.

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Oct 07 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Aug 28 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
  3. Aug 12 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
  4. Aug 09 2019
    Motion of the Solicitor General to extend the time to file a response from August 7, 2019 to September 6, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  5. Aug 09 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 6, 2019.
  6. Aug 07 2019
    Brief of respondent Doris Freyre in opposition filed.
  7. Jun 28 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 7, 2019.
  8. Jun 26 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 8, 2019 to August 7, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. May 31 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 8, 2019.
  10. May 28 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 6, 2019 to July 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  11. May 07 2019
    Response Requested. (Due June 6, 2019)
  12. Apr 30 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.
  13. Mar 14 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 17, 2019)