Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

David C. Shinn v. Ryan Robert Baker

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 18-16699 · judgment March 13, 2020


Certiorari denied · April 19, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and counsel who has filed here before.

Questions presented

In United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020), this Court unanimously held that “[i]n our adversarial system of adjudication, [federal courts] follow the principle of party presentation … rely[ing] on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020). It further explained that where a court of appeals injects new issues into an appeal not raised by the parties, it effects a “radical transformation of [the] case [that] goes well beyond the pale,” and unanimously reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit that had done just that. Id. at 1581-52. While Sineneng-Smith was pending, the Ninth Circuit committed essentially the same error, save for some features that make the departure from the ordinary adversarial system even worse here. Sineneng-Smith came down the day after the Ninth Circuit had denied a petition for rehearing. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether this Court should reverse the decision below under Sineneng-Smith.

  2. Whether this Court should grant, vacate and remand in light of Sineneng-Smith.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Drew Curtis Ensign
Holtzman Vogel

For respondent
Jeffrey James Rogers
Law Office of Jeffrey J Rogers

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Apr 19 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Mar 24 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
  3. Mar 23 2021
    Reply of petitioner David Shinn filed. (Distributed)
  4. Mar 04 2021
    Brief of Ryan Robert Baker in opposition not accepted for filing. (Dupilicate submission)(March 17, 2021)
  5. Mar 04 2021
    Brief of respondent Ryan Robert Baker in opposition filed. (Mar. 16, 2021)
  6. Jan 05 2021
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 8, 2021. See Rule 30.1.
  7. Dec 23 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 6, 2021 to March 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
  8. Dec 07 2020
    Response Requested. (Due January 6, 2021)
  9. Nov 24 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
  10. Oct 05 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2020)