Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Charles Hamner v. Danny Burls, Warden, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 18-2181 · judgment November 26, 2019
Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, an Eighth Circuit decision below, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Question presented
“Since qualified immunity is a defense, the burden of pleading it rests with the defendant.” Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). Nonetheless, three circuits raise qualified immunity sua sponte. By contrast, in nine circuits, defendants must claim entitlement to qualified immunity or lose its shield. The first question presented is: Is qualified immunity an affirmative defense that state actors must assert, as nine circuits hold, or may federal appellate courts raise the defense sua sponte, as three circuits hold? In Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009), the Court announced discretion to proceed directly to the “clearly established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis. A chorus of federal jurists has criticized this approach, which may “leave standards of official conduct permanently in limbo.” Camreta v. Green, 563 U.S. 692, 706 (2011). The second question presented is: Should the Court reconsider Pearson in light of empirical evidence that bypassing the constitutional prong results in a constitutional catch-22, increasingly leaving pressing questions unanswered simply because they have not been answered before?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Daniel M. Greenfield
MacArthur Justice Center
For respondent
Nicholas Jacob Bronni
Solicitor General of Arkansas
Proceedings
- Oct 13 2020Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Federal Corrections Directors GRANTED.
- Oct 13 2020Petition DENIED.
- Sep 16 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
- Sep 16 2020Reply of petitioner Charles Hamner filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 27 2020Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until September 16, 2020 granted.
- Aug 25 2020Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from September 2, 2020 to September 16, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- Aug 14 2020Brief of respondents Danny Burls, et al. in opposition filed.
- Jun 15 2020Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
- Jun 15 2020Brief amici curiae of Professors and Practitioners of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Medicine filed.
- Jun 12 2020Brief amicus curiae of John F. Stinneford filed.
- Jun 11 2020Brief amici curiae of Human Rights Clinics, et al. filed.
- Jun 08 2020Brief amici curiae of Professors of Civil Procedure and Federal Courts filed.
- May 20 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 14, 2020.
- May 20 2020Response to motion from respondent Danny Burls, et al. filed.
- May 19 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 15, 2020 to August 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
- May 14 2020Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Former Corrections Directors.
- May 07 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 15, 2020)
- Feb 19 2020Application (19A917) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until April 21, 2020.
- Feb 18 2020Application (19A917) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 8, 2020 to May 7, 2020, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.