Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The case involves Holston Banks, a convicted prisoner, who sued John Spence for excessive use of force in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The incident occurred in 2017, and Banks filed his lawsuit in October 2019. In April 2022, Spence moved to extend the deadline for filing an amended pleading, which was initially set for May 2, 2022. The court denied the motion but later extended the deadline to May 25, 2022, after a joint motion for an agreed amended scheduling order. On May 24, Spence filed an amended answer to Banks's complaint.Spence moved for judgment on the pleadings in September, arguing that Banks's Fourteenth Amendment claim was not applicable to convicted prisoners. He also claimed that Banks failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Banks's counsel became aware of the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment distinction in August. On October 6, 134 days after the deadline and 38 days after Banks's counsel became aware of the issue, Banks moved to amend his claim to assert an Eighth Amendment claim. The district court denied the motion and granted judgment on the pleadings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court applied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines could not reasonably be met despite their diligence. The court found that Banks's counsel's failure to understand the applicable law until after the deadline had passed was not an adequate explanation for the delay in amending the claim. The court cited previous cases where a lack of explanation for delay was sufficient to deny amendment. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Banks's motion to amend. View "Banks v. Spence" on Justia Law

Raynard Jackson, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), was placed in a cell without running water for five days. He alleged that Lieutenant Dane Esser, among other WSPF staff, knew that he did not have water and yet failed to turn the water on. After Jackson showed another staff member that he did not have water, the water was promptly turned on; however, he claimed Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff failed to provide him with medical care for his dehydration. Jackson filed grievances pertaining to these issues. After he exhausted his administrative remedies within the WSPF, he sued Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The district court, only considering the processed grievances, and without holding an evidentiary hearing, found that Jackson had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to certain claims and defendants. Additional defendants, Nurse Beth Edge and Captain Dale Flannery, were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving only the claims against Lt. Esser for trial. The jury found for Lt. Esser on both claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with Jackson that the district court should not have disregarded his allegedly unprocessed grievances without holding an evidentiary hearing. However, the court found no error in the district court’s conclusion that Jackson’s processed grievances did not exhaust remedies as to all his claims. The court also found no error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Nurse Edge or its evidentiary rulings before trial. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a hearing on the allegedly unprocessed grievances. View "Jackson v. Esser" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Independent School District 194 and its superintendent. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their First Amendment rights by discriminating against their political viewpoints. The controversy arose when the school district allowed the display of Black Lives Matter (BLM) posters in classrooms but rejected requests to display "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" posters and shirts. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and denied the unnamed plaintiffs' motion to proceed under pseudonyms.The district court ruled that the unnamed plaintiffs had not sufficiently established a threat of a hostile public reaction to their lawsuit that would warrant anonymity. It also concluded that the BLM posters constituted government speech that is not subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The plaintiffs appealed both orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to proceed under pseudonyms, finding that the unnamed plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence of a compelling fear of retaliation. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to allow a court to draw the plausible inference that the BLM posters are expressions of private persons, not government speech. The court also found that the district had engaged in viewpoint discrimination by allowing the display of BLM posters but rejecting "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" posters and shirts. View "Cajune v. Independent School District 194" on Justia Law

A defamation lawsuit was filed by Dana Cheng, a New York resident and political commentator, against Dan Neumann and Beacon, a Maine news outlet, for characterizing Cheng as "far-right" and a "conspiracy theorist" in an article. Neumann and Beacon sought dismissal of the case under both federal law and a New York anti-SLAPP law, which applies to meritless defamation lawsuits. The district court conducted a choice-of-law analysis, decided that New York law applied, and granted the motion to dismiss under New York's anti-SLAPP statute.The district court's decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appellate court agreed with the district court's ruling but for a different reason: it decided that Cheng's lawsuit had to be dismissed under binding First Amendment principles protecting free speech by the press. Back at the district court, Neumann requested attorneys' fees under the fee-shifting provision of New York's anti-SLAPP law. The district court denied Neumann's request after determining that Maine, not New York, law applied to the specific issue of attorneys' fees.Neumann appealed again, arguing that the district court erred in its choice-of-law analysis. The appellate court, noting the lack of clear controlling precedent on the issue, certified to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine the question of which state's law applies to the attorneys' fees issue. View "Cheng v. Neumann" on Justia Law

The case involves Xingfei Luo, who twice sought a restraining order against Professor Eugene Volokh under the Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. Luo wanted to prevent Volokh from identifying her in his writings. After the trial court dismissed the first petition, Luo moved to "strike" exhibits she filed in support of that failed petition. The trial court denied that motion and granted Volokh’s motion to preclude her from proceeding pseudonymously in that case. Luo appealed these orders. The second case involves Luo’s second petition for a restraining order where the trial court granted Volokh’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion and dismissed Luo’s second petition. Luo also appealed from a subsequent order granting Volokh’s motion to preclude Luo from proceeding pseudonymously in her second petition.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Luo's first petition for a restraining order, concluding that the alleged harmful conduct was "likely protected free speech." The court also found that the alleged facts did not comprise acts of violence, threats of violence, or a course of conduct that seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed the petitioner and caused substantial emotional distress. Luo did not appeal from the order discharging that petition. However, Luo filed an "ex parte application for an order to strike and withdraw improperly filed exhibits." The trial court denied Luo’s ex parte motion to “strike” her exhibits because Luo had not completed the proper forms for submitting an ex parte motion. Luo filed a new motion and Volokh again opposed it, and also filed a separate motion to preclude Luo from proceeding pseudonymously in that case. The trial court denied Luo’s motion to strike her exhibits and granted Volokh’s motion to preclude Luo from proceeding pseudonymously.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division One, the court affirmed the order granting Volokh’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing Luo’s second petition. The court dismissed Luo’s appeals as to the trial court’s ruling on her motion to strike exhibits in her first petition and the court’s granting of Volokh’s motions in both cases to use her actual name. The court concluded that these rulings are based on nonappealable orders. View "Luo v. Volokh" on Justia Law

The case involves Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Smith & Wesson Sales Company, and Smith & Wesson Inc. (collectively, “Smith & Wesson”) and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. The New Jersey Attorney General issued a subpoena to Smith & Wesson under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, seeking documents related to the company's advertising practices. Smith & Wesson filed a federal lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, alleging it violated various constitutional provisions. The New Jersey Attorney General then filed a subpoena enforcement action in state court. The state court rejected Smith & Wesson’s objections and ordered the company to comply with the subpoena.The state court proceedings concluded before the federal case, with the state court ordering Smith & Wesson to comply with the subpoena. The federal court then dismissed Smith & Wesson’s civil rights action on claim preclusion grounds, giving preclusive effect to the state court’s order. The state appellate court later affirmed the state court judgment. Smith & Wesson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court should not have given preclusive effect to the state court order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court found that all elements of New Jersey’s claim preclusion test were satisfied. The court also rejected Smith & Wesson’s argument that it had reserved its right to litigate in federal court, finding that such reservation was unavailable in this case. The court emphasized that litigants get one opportunity to make their arguments, not two, and they cannot file a federal lawsuit to hedge against a potentially unfavorable state ruling. View "Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the death of Daryl Clinton, who died in the Oklahoma County Jail four days after being booked. Clinton was arrested for driving under the influence and was evaluated at a hospital before being discharged and sent to jail. Despite reporting several health issues, including an inability to move his arms or upper body, Clinton's complaints were largely dismissed by medical personnel. He was found unresponsive in his cell and later pronounced dead at the hospital. The cause of death was listed as blunt force trauma to the cervical spine.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Equlla M. Brothers, the personal representative of Clinton's estate, filed a lawsuit against Tommie Johnson III, the Oklahoma County Sheriff, alleging that Johnson was deliberately indifferent to Clinton's serious medical needs, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied Johnson's motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Johnson.Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Brothers argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the verdict, the jury instructions misled the jury on the systemic failure claim, and the district court erred in denying her motion to contact the jury. However, the appellate court found that Brothers had waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to raise a Rule 50(a) or 50(b) motion or argue plain error. The court also found that Brothers' objections to the jury instructions were waived as she had not distinctly stated her objections and grounds for them at the district court. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Brothers' motion to contact the jury. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Brothers v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin Stanley, who was employed by Western Michigan University (WMU) for about a month before his employment was terminated. Stanley, who has severe ADHD, claimed that WMU and certain supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also brought a claim under Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed Stanley’s federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed his state-law claims for failure to comply with the Michigan Court of Claims Act’s notification statute.The district court's dismissal of Stanley's claims was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s federal claims and the denial of Stanley’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. However, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded to the district court to dismiss Stanley’s federal and state-law claims without prejudice. The court found that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Stanley’s ADA claims because the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Stanley lacked standing to request injunctive relief from the individual defendants. The court also found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide Stanley’s state-law claims because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any federal issues. View "Stanley v. Western Michigan University" on Justia Law

Three Black citizens of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Darryl Carter, Diane Johnson, and Theresa Hawthorne, were struck from jury duty during voir dire in 2015. They alleged that their removal violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, claiming that the Caddo Parish prosecutors peremptorily struck them based on their race. The plaintiffs joined an ongoing litigation challenging the Caddo District Attorney's alleged custom of racially biased peremptory strikes. They sued District Attorney James E. Stewart, in his official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The district court dismissed all plaintiffs except Carter, Johnson, and Hawthorne. The District Attorney then moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, leading to a de novo review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish a predicate constitutional violation, which is necessary for a Monell claim. The prosecutors had provided race-neutral explanations for each plaintiff's dismissal. For Carter, the prosecutor noted his expressed bias against evidence from Shreveport. For Johnson, the prosecutor highlighted her potential bias against the police department due to a family member's felony conviction. For Hawthorne, the prosecutor found her colloquies with defense counsel problematic due to her preconceived notions about firearm possession. The court found these explanations sufficient and not merely pretexts for race-based dismissals. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' statistical evidence did not prove discriminatory motive. Without an underlying Equal Protection claim, the plaintiffs' Monell claim failed. View "Pipkins v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The case involves Cailin Hardell, who sued Adrian Vanzyl, Waleed Mohsen, and Blumberg Capital for sexual assault and battery, sexual harassment, and retaliation, among other claims, related to an incident in Miami, Florida in March 2022. Vanzyl, a non-resident defendant, moved to quash service of summons of the first amended complaint, arguing that he had insufficient contacts with California for the trial court to exercise either specific or general personal jurisdiction over him. The trial court agreed and also denied Hardell’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery.The trial court's decision was based on its finding that Vanzyl was not domiciled or continuously and systematically present in California in March 2022, and that Vanzyl had insufficient suit-related contacts with California. Hardell appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court erred in its findings and that it should have granted her request for jurisdictional discovery.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four concluded that the connection between Hardell’s claims against Vanzyl and his contacts with California was too attenuated to support specific jurisdiction. However, it also concluded that the trial court erred in failing to consider whether it could exercise general jurisdiction over Vanzyl notwithstanding its finding that he was not domiciled in California in March 2022, and that it abused its discretion in denying Hardell’s request for discovery. The case was remanded, with Hardell being allowed to conduct limited discovery addressing whether the trial court may exercise general jurisdiction over Vanzyl. View "Hardell v. Vanzyl" on Justia Law