Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Jane Doe v. Jack Dwosh

IFP petition · Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, No. B329404 · judgment February 11, 2025


Certiorari denied · October 20, 2025

Question presented

The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause, which protects against excessive punitive economic sanctions, is fundamental to the scheme of ordered liberty, with deep roots in the Nation’s history and tradition, and thus the Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment’s Due Process Clause. U.S. Const. Amends. 8, 14. Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause protect a pro per indigent party in State courts, whether or not she uses the term “Eighth Amendment” in her opposition in describing her indigence and the excessiveness of fines?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jane Doe

For respondent

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 20 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Oct 02 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/17/2025.
  3. Aug 11 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 15, 2025)