{"id":2309,"date":"2020-11-10T12:24:19","date_gmt":"2020-11-10T18:24:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2309"},"modified":"2020-11-30T12:34:31","modified_gmt":"2020-11-30T18:34:31","slug":"bilal-v-geo-care-11th-cir-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/11\/10\/bilal-v-geo-care-11th-cir-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Bilal v. Geo Care (11th Cir. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bilal v. Geo Care, No. 16\u201311722 (11th Cir. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant, a civilly committed individual, brought a lawsuit against the company responsible for the operation of Florida’s civil commitment center and other individuals alleging violations of his Due Process rights in connection with his transportation to a court hearing. Specifically, Appellant alleged that refusal to allow him to use the bathroom during a 600 mile road trip and detaining him in a jail for approximately one month violated his Due Process rights. The lower court dismissed these claims, and Appellant sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Some of Appellant’s claims related to the transport did state a Due Process claim, and Appellant did successfully state a Due Process claim with regard to his monthlong detention in a jail cell.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n