Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Daniel James Altstatt v. City of Sacramento, California
Paid petition · Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, No. C092141 · judgment May 18, 2022
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Following the Court’s ruling in Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (2019), which held that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, does a state court err by failing to apply any of the factors set out in United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) in evaluating whether a civil penalty is unconstitutionally excessive?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Thomas Quaid Swanson
Hilgers Graben PLLC
For respondent
Matthew David Ruyak
CIty of Sacramento, City Attorney's Office
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Feb 21 2023Petition DENIED.
- Feb 01 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
- Feb 01 2023Reply of petitioner Daniel James Altstatt filed. (Distributed)
- Jan 17 2023Brief of respondent City of Sacramento, California in opposition filed.
- Dec 09 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 18, 2023.
- Dec 08 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 19, 2022 to January 18, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 15 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 19, 2022)