Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Joel Cielak and Barron Hodges were sexually abused by David Johnson, a teacher at Nicolet High School (NHS), in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hodges reported the abuse in 1983, leading the school board to confront Johnson but keep him employed under supervision. Johnson ceased abusing Hodges but continued to abuse Cielak, who had graduated in 1982. Both plaintiffs sued NHS, the school district, and board members under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights and a conspiracy to violate their equal protection rights. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend the complaint.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state claims based on Johnson's abuse predating Hodges's 1983 allegation. The court also found that Hodges's claims were time-barred and that Cielak's allegations of post-allegation harms did not amount to violations of his substantive due process or equal protection rights. The court denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, deeming it futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Hodges's claims were time-barred as he knew of his injuries and their cause in the fall of 1983. In contrast, the court found that it was unclear when Cielak knew or had reason to know that his post-allegation injuries were connected to actions by the defendants, making it improper to dismiss his claims on statute of limitations grounds at this stage. However, the court concluded that Cielak failed to plausibly plead a violation of his substantive due process or equal protection rights because Johnson's post-allegation abuse was not under color of state law. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend, noting that the plaintiffs failed to explain how they would cure the complaint's defects. View "Cielak v. Nicolet Union High School District" on Justia Law

A federal prisoner, LaQuan Johnson, filed a complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, seeking money damages from federal prison officials, doctors, a nurse, and a kitchen supervisor. Johnson alleged violations of his constitutional rights through excessive force, failure to protect him from other inmates, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The incidents occurred while Johnson was housed at the United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, from September 2015 to April 2019. He claimed that prison officials failed to separate pretrial detainees from convicted inmates, leading to multiple attacks on him, and that medical staff provided inadequate treatment for his injuries.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding that Johnson was denied access to the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) administrative remedy program. However, after further discovery, the district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that Johnson's claims did not entitle him to a Bivens remedy because they would require recognizing new Bivens causes of action, which the court is generally forbidden to create.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that Johnson's failure to protect and deliberate indifference claims presented new Bivens contexts, as they were meaningfully different from the three contexts previously recognized by the Supreme Court in Bivens, Davis v. Passman, and Carlson v. Green. The court also found that special factors, including the existence of the BOP's administrative remedy program, counseled against extending Bivens to these new contexts. The court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedial structure alone is sufficient to preclude the creation of a new Bivens remedy. View "Johnson v. Terry" on Justia Law

The case involves the removal of a newborn child, N., from her mother, C.J., due to the mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed N. with a foster caregiver, who was a trial attorney for the County Counsel’s office. Maternal aunt (aunt) requested placement of N. shortly after her birth, but DCFS failed to assess her for over a year despite repeated requests from mother’s counsel, N.’s counsel, and aunt herself. During this period, visitation between N. and her family was severely limited, with the caregiver dictating the visitation schedule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County repeatedly ordered DCFS to assess aunt for placement, but DCFS did not comply. Eventually, aunt’s home was approved for placement, but DCFS still did not move N. to aunt’s care, deferring to the caregiver’s objections. By the time the court considered aunt for placement, over a year had passed, and the court found it was too late to apply the relative placement preference. The court also found that it was not in N.’s best interest to move her due to her bond with the caregiver.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that DCFS’s delays in evaluating aunt for placement and the court’s lackluster response to the family’s pleas for supportive services were prejudicial. The court concluded that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3 and that the error was prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the order terminating mother’s reunification services, the order denying mother’s section 361.3 motion, and the order terminating her parental rights, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also directed DCFS and the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. View "In re N.J." on Justia Law

Ryan Cox filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the defendants manipulated the price of a cryptocurrency called HEX by artificially lowering its ranking on CoinMarketCap.com. The defendants include two domestic companies, a foreign company, and three individual officers of the foreign company. Cox claimed that the manipulation caused HEX to trade at lower prices, benefiting the defendants financially.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Cox needed to show the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona before invoking the Commodity Exchange Act's nationwide service of process provision. The court found that none of the defendants had sufficient contacts with Arizona.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes nationwide service of process independent of its venue requirement. The court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the U.S. defendants, CoinMarketCap and Binance.US, because they had sufficient contacts with the United States. The court also found that Cox's claims against these defendants were colorable under the Commodity Exchange Act. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the U.S. defendants and remanded for further proceedings.However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims against the foreign defendants, Binance Capital and its officers, due to their lack of sufficient contacts with the United States. The court vacated the dismissal "with prejudice" and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint against the foreign defendants without prejudice. View "COX V. COINMARKETCAP OPCO, LLC" on Justia Law

Robert Allen Stanford operated a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme through various entities in Texas and Antigua. In 2009, a federal district court appointed an equity receiver (the "Receiver") to manage the assets of the Stanford entities, handle claims from defrauded investors, and pursue claims against third parties. This appeal concerns a settlement with Societe Generale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A. ("SGPB"), which included a bar order preventing future Stanford-related claims against the Swiss bank. Two individuals appointed by an Antiguan court to liquidate one of the Stanford entities argued that the bar order should not apply to their claims against SGPB.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the settlement and issued the bar order. The Joint Liquidators objected, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. They filed their objection in a related Chapter 15 proceeding rather than the main SEC action, leading to a jurisdictional dispute. The district court held a hearing, during which it indicated that any participation by the Joint Liquidators' counsel would be considered a waiver of their jurisdictional objection. The court approved the settlement and entered the bar order, prompting the Joint Liquidators to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not have the necessary personal jurisdiction to bind the Joint Liquidators with its bar order. The court emphasized that injunctions require in personam jurisdiction, which the district court lacked over the Joint Liquidators. The court vacated the district court's scheduling order and the bar order as it applied to the Joint Liquidators, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Dickson v. Janvey" on Justia Law

A charter school was accused of manipulating attendance records to receive excess state aid. The Minnesota Department of Education (the Department) audited the school based on these allegations and found significant discrepancies, leading to a retroactive reduction in aid by over $1.3 million. The school appealed the audit results administratively, but the Department upheld its decision.The school then appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department should have investigated the allegations under a statute dealing with violations of law (Minn. Stat. § 127A.42) rather than the statute used for auditing aid distributions (Minn. Stat. § 127A.41). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Department's decision, stating that the Department had the authority to conduct the audit under the statute it used.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the Department was required to investigate under the statute related to violations of law. The court held that the Department had the statutory authority to audit the school under Minn. Stat. § 127A.41 and was not required to investigate under Minn. Stat. § 127A.42, even though the allegations involved potentially illegal activity. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the Department's actions were within its legal authority. View "Minnesota Internship Center vs. Minnesota Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Re-Enfranchisement Act, which allows individuals convicted of felony-level offenses to vote once they are no longer incarcerated. The plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the Act violates the Minnesota Constitution by restoring only the right to vote rather than all civil rights. They also claimed that using public funds to educate and notify people about the new voting provision is unlawful if the Act itself is unconstitutional.The district court denied the petition, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court determined that taxpayer standing requires a challenge to an illegal expenditure or waste of tax money, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate. The court also found that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lacked associational standing because its members did not have standing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The court held that the plaintiffs could not manufacture standing by pointing to incidental expenditures related to implementing the law. Since the plaintiffs' challenge was primarily against the substantive law itself and not the expenditures, they lacked the necessary standing. Consequently, the Minnesota Voters Alliance also lacked associational standing. The court did not address the merits of the case due to the lack of standing. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Hunt" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, who regularly engage in cryptocurrency transactions, challenged amendments to 26 U.S.C. § 6050I, which now require reporting certain cryptocurrency transactions to the federal government. They argued that the law violates their constitutional rights under the Fourth, First, and Fifth Amendments, and exceeds Congress's enumerated powers. The plaintiffs claimed that the law's requirements would force them to disclose private information, incur compliance costs, and potentially expose them to criminal penalties.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the case, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. The court ruled that the claims were either not ripe for adjudication or that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Specifically, the court found that the Fourth Amendment claim was not ripe because the law was not yet effective and the Department of Treasury was still developing rules. The First Amendment claim was dismissed for lack of standing, as the court deemed the plaintiffs' injuries too speculative. The court also found the Fifth Amendment vagueness claim unripe due to pending regulatory action, and the enumerated-powers claim unripe for similar reasons. The Fifth Amendment self-incrimination claim was dismissed as not ripe because the plaintiffs had not yet asserted the privilege.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in dismissing the enumerated-powers, Fourth Amendment, and First Amendment claims. The appellate court held that these claims were ripe for review and that the plaintiffs had standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs, as direct objects of the law, would indeed be subject to the reporting requirements and incur compliance costs, thus suffering an injury in fact. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Fifth Amendment vagueness and self-incrimination claims as not ripe. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Carman v. Yellen" on Justia Law

The case involves a non-fatal shooting of Joseph Williams by officers of the Sparks Police Department following a 42-minute car chase. Williams had stolen alcohol and vandalized a vehicle, leading to a police pursuit. During the chase, Williams ran red lights, drove through a fence, and briefly drove on the wrong side of the freeway. The chase ended when officers pinned Williams's truck, but he continued to attempt to flee, leading officers to fire multiple rounds, injuring him.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied summary judgment on Williams's claims of excessive force, municipal liability, and battery, except for the negligence claim. The court found genuine factual disputes about the threat Williams posed and whether he was attempting to flee when officers fired. The court also denied summary judgment on the Monell claims and the battery claim, citing unresolved factual issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment. The appellate court found that video evidence clearly showed Williams attempting to accelerate, contradicting his claim. The court held that the officers' use of deadly force was objectively reasonable, given the threat Williams posed to public safety. The court also exercised pendent jurisdiction over the Monell and battery claims, finding no constitutional violation in the officers' use of force and ruling that the battery claim failed because the force used was not unreasonable. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. City of Sparks" on Justia Law

Jose Vasquez was detained twice by the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) because he shares the same name and birthdate as a wanted criminal. He sued the District of Columbia and an officer for constitutional violations under Section 1983, and the District alone for negligence, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. The District Court granted summary judgment on the Section 1983 and negligence claims. The jury found the District liable for false imprisonment but not for malicious prosecution, awarding Vasquez $100,000. However, the District Court later granted the District's motion for judgment as a matter of law, nullifying the jury's award, and alternatively granted a motion for remittitur.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially reviewed the case. It granted summary judgment in favor of the District and Officer Agosto on the Section 1983 claims, finding no constitutional violations. The court also dismissed the negligence claim. The jury trial on the common law claims resulted in a mixed verdict, with the jury awarding damages for false imprisonment but not for malicious prosecution. The District Court subsequently overturned the jury's verdict on false imprisonment and reduced the damages awarded.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court's summary judgment on the Section 1983 claims, agreeing that there was no clearly established constitutional violation and that qualified immunity applied to Officer Agosto. However, the appellate court vacated the District Court's judgment as a matter of law and the alternative remittitur on the false imprisonment claim. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the jury could reasonably find that the differing social security numbers indicated Vasquez was not the wanted criminal, and that the jury's damages award was justified based on the emotional harm suffered. View "Vasquez v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law