Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Rebecca Breaux brought an age discrimination action against her employer ASC Industries on May 6, 2012. On May 24, 2013, Breaux’s attorney Lurlia Oglesby filed a statement in accordance with Rule 25(a)(3) noting that Breaux had died. The district court stayed the action pending the substitution of parties. After the ninety days allotted for the substitution of a party passed without any motion being filed, ASC Industries moved for the action to be dismissed. On the next business day, September 3, 2013, the district court granted ASC Industries’ motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2013, Oglesby filed a motion on behalf of Breaux’s estate to alter or amend the judgment of dismissal. The issue this case presented for the Fifth Circuit's centered on whether personal service of a suggestion of death on a deceased-plaintiff’s estate was required in order for the ninety-day time limit to run for the substitution of a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 25. The Court held that personal service was required. View "Sampson v. ASC Industries" on Justia Law

Smith, labeled as a “snitch,” was attacked by other inmates in the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. He was removed from the Unit and placed in protective custody. Smith alleges that correctional officer Johnson later returned him to the general population in the Varner Unit, without Smith’s consent and in violation of departmental policies. According to Smith, the next day another inmate severely beat him with his fist and a lock, causing scarring, a lost tooth, migraines, blurred vision, sensory losses, dizzy spells, and psychological symptoms. After the attack, Smith claims that Johnson and other officers punished him using “major disciplinary policies.” Smith unsuccessfully pursued grievances and filed a pro se claim with the State Claims Commission. The Commission dismissed Smith’s claim for failure to prove any negligence by the Department of Correction. Smith next filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging “deliberate indifference for [his] safety” and cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed, ruling if the Claims Commission had jurisdiction over Smith’s constitutional claim, the action was barred by claim preclusion; if the Commission did not have jurisdiction over that claim, issue preclusion barred Smith’s claim. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that neither doctrine barred the suit. View "Smith v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In August 2012, the United States filed a civil suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., alleging that the failure of the Florida to provide a kosher diet program to all of its prisoners with sincere religious grounds for keeping kosher was a substantial burden on those prisoners' religious exercise. The complaint requested both injunctive and declaratory relief under the statute. After the district court denied Florida's motion to dismiss the complaint, the State issued a new policy in March 2013, formally titled "Procedure 503.006" and informally referred to as "the Religious Diet Program." In addition to outlining the contents of the meals, Procedure 503.006 contains a number of provisions that determine a prisoner's eligibility for the program. When the United States learned about Procedure 503.006 in April 2013, it filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction the court entered required Florida to provide the kosher diet, and prevented the State from enforcing the eligibility provisions of Procedure 503.006. The court's order did not, however, mention the need-narrowness-intrusiveness criteria for preliminary injunctions established by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). While this interlocutory appeal was pending, the district court held monthly status conferences between the parties. But the court did not make any need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings regarding the preliminary injunction, nor did it issue an order finalizing the preliminary injunction. As a result, the preliminary injunction expired by operation of law on Thursday, March 6, 2014. "The preliminary injunction in the present case passed on to injunction heaven [. . .] And with it died this appeal," unless there existed an exception to the mootness doctrine. Finding no exception, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the mooted issue, and vacated the portion of the district court's order that addressed it. View "United States v. Sec'y, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and elder abuse for his conduct during one incident. Defendant filed a pretrial motion requesting that the court order the State to elect between prosecuting him for either aggravated assault or elder abuse, arguing that his federal double jeopardy protections and the protections of Montana’s “multiple charges” statute would be violated if he were prosecuted for both offenses. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the elder abuse statute was neither a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault nor a specific instance of aggravated assault. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding (1) Defendant may be prosecuted for more than one offense arising out of the same transaction; and (2) Defendant’s double jeopardy claim and reliance on the protections of the multiple charges statute were premature. View "State v. Violette" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal attempt to commit murder, two counts of first-degree robbery, and possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Defendant’s conviction of criminal attempt to commit murder and affirmed the remainder of his convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant’s confession was voluntary and by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress his confession; (2) the trial court erred by admitting Defendant’s redacted confession to the jury, and the improper redaction constituted reversible error; and (3) the jury unanimously convicted Defendant of possession of a handgun by a convicted felon. Remanded. View "Sykes v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Ohio Rev. Code 2907.05(C)(2)(a), which defines “gross sexual imposition” and subjects an offender to a mandatory term of imprisonment when evidence other than the victim’s testimony is admitted corroborating the violation. Appellant in this case pled guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition. The State introduced testimony regarding Appellant’s alleged confession to the offenses and argued that the confession constituted corroborating evidence, and thus a mandatory prison sentence was required. The trial court concluded that application of section 2907.05(C)(2)(a) violated Appellant’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 2907.05(C)(2)(a)’s requirement of a mandatory prison term when corroborating evidence is introduced is unconstitutional because corroboration bears no rational relationship to the crime’s activity; and (2) in cases in which a defendant has pled guilty, imposing a mandatory prison term pursuant to section 2907.05(C)(2)(a) when corroborating evidence of the charge of gross sexual imposition is produced violates a defendant’s right to a jury trial. View "State v. Bevly" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs here challenged the constitutionality of two laws: a 2011 law requiring a parental notification before a minor may obtain an abortion, and a 2013 law requiring parental consent before a minor may obtain an abortion. In 1999, a district court held unconstitutional a similar 1995 law requiring parental notification before a minor may obtain an abortion. Plaintiffs claimed that the 1999 district court order prevented the State from defending the constitutionality of the laws at issue in the current challenge on grounds of issue preclusion. The Supreme Court held that because the laws that were the subject of the current challenge differed from the 1995 law in substantive respects, issue preclusion did not apply in this case. View "Planned Parenthood of Mont. v. State" on Justia Law

For 13 years Sklyarsky worked as a custodian at a Chicago office building, through different employers. In 2010, new supervisors began disciplining Sklyarsky. He complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights that the company was treating him unfairly because of his Ukrainian national origin. Sklyarsky was fired in 2013, and after exhausting administrative remedies, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 2000e-2, e-3, e-5(f).1 During discovery Sklyarsky, an experienced pro se litigant, concluded that the building’s management company had been involved in the discrimination and sought leave to join it as a defendant. Judge Kocoras denied that motion, telling Sklyarsky that Means-Knaus had “nothing to do with the employment contract” and that, if he wanted to sue MeansKnaus, he would have to file a separate action. Sklyarsky did that. Judge Gottschall, assigned to the new suit against Means-Knaus, screened Sklyarsky’s pro se complaint and dismissed it sua sponte, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the doctrine of claim preclusion foreclosed a separate suit. Judge Kocoras refused to reconsider and entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. In consolidated appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any procedural missteps were harmless. View "Sklyarsky v. Harvard Maint., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was fired from his place of employment after his employer (Defendant) learned that Plaintiff had consistently falsified his time cards over the course of several years, costing the company “1.25 hours of labor per week.” Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that Defendant had terminated him in retaliation for taking family leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that because Plaintiff did not offer evidence of retaliatory animus sufficient to raise a disputed question of fact or to defeat Defendant’s right to judgment as a matter of law, Plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving that Defendant’s stated reason for his termination was a pretext. View "Ameen v. Amphenol Printed Circuits, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a town official for the town of Raymond, claimed that Michael Reynolds, a fellow town official, told the sheriff’s department that Plaintiff had driven while intoxicated, that the reports were false, and the false statements damaged his reputation. Plaintiff brought suit in state superior court, alleging state law claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, as well as federal claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of the federal claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims and proceeded to resolve the state law claims. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the dismissal of the federal claim; and (2) vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff’s state law claims as to Reynolds and remanded the claims to state court, holding the state law claims involved resolution of a potential conflict between Maine’s Anti-SLAPP statute and Maine’s Constitution, a conflict that “is best resolved by the Maine courts.” View "Desjardins v. Willard" on Justia Law