Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In Pennsylvania, four family members, including two elderly parents, were injured during a pre-dawn, no-knock raid by the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) of the Pennsylvania State Police. The police acted on information about alleged drug sales by a family member, but none of the four injured individuals were suspected of any wrongdoing. They sued the officers for excessive use of force, but the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. The court found that the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable as they had used substantial force against individuals who were unarmed, cooperative, outnumbered by law enforcement, not suspected of wrongdoing, and in their own home. Furthermore, the court held that the right to be free from such excessive force was clearly established at the time of the officers' conduct, and that any reasonable officer would have known that their actions were unlawful. Hence, the court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Anglemeyer v. Ammons" on Justia Law

In this case, Larry Donnell Gibbs, a pro se plaintiff, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five officers of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He alleged that two officers allowed him to bleed for 45 minutes after being stabbed by another inmate, and three other officers used excessive force against him in retaliation for filing a grievance about the incident. Gibbs attempted to proceed in forma pauperis, which would have allowed service to be made by a United States marshal, but the district court denied this on the basis that he had already paid the filing fee, had sufficient funds in his inmate trust account to serve the defendants, and had not provided the addresses of the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court had abused its discretion by denying Gibbs's in forma pauperis status. It held that a person who is not a pauper at the commencement of a suit may become one during or prior to its prosecution. The court also found that the district court had arbitrarily determined that the funds in Gibbs's inmate trust account were sufficient for him to serve the defendants and that there's no requirement for an individual to be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of in forma pauperis status. The court also held that a district court's determination of whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis must be based solely upon economic criteria and not on the lack of addresses for the defendants. The court concluded that the denial of Gibbs's in forma pauperis status had prejudiced his chances of effecting service. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to permit Gibbs to proceed in forma pauperis. View "Gibbs v. Jackson" on Justia Law

In this case, two New Jersey parents sued various school and law enforcement officials, alleging that their First Amendment rights were violated when they were punished for refusing to wear masks at school board meetings. George Falcone was issued a summons and Gwyneth Murray-Nolan was arrested. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Falcone had standing to sue because his alleged injuries were directly traceable to the defendants who allegedly conspired to violate his First Amendment right to engage in political and symbolic speech. The court reversed and remanded the lower court's order dismissing Falcone's complaint for lack of standing.However, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Murray-Nolan's complaint. The court held that refusing to wear a mask is not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Further, Murray-Nolan's retaliation claim failed because the police had probable cause to arrest her and she did not link her constitutionally protected speech activities (such as her social media posts) to any of the defendants' allegedly retaliatory actions. View "Falcone v. Dickstein" on Justia Law

A pregnant inmate, Lidia Lech, filed a lawsuit against several healthcare providers and staff at the Western Massachusetts Regional Women's Correctional Center (WCC), alleging that they ignored her serious medical symptoms and denied her requests to go to the hospital, resulting in the stillbirth of her baby. The district court permitted most of Lech's claims to proceed to trial, but granted summary judgment in favor of one of the correctional officers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defense. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in two evidentiary rulings. The first error was allowing the defense to use Lech's recorded phone calls to impugn her character for truthfulness. The second error was excluding testimony from Lech's friend, which would have corroborated her version of events. The court concluded that at least one of these evidentiary rulings was not harmless, vacated the jury verdict, and remanded for a new trial against most of the defendants. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the correctional officer, as well as the jury verdict in favor of one of the medical providers. View "Lech v. Von Goeler" on Justia Law

In the case between Jennifer Harris and FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Harris alleged race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Harris's § 1981 claims were time-barred under her employment contract, making them fail as a matter of law. However, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict for Harris on her Title VII retaliation claim. In view of Title VII’s $300,000 cap on damages and the evidence presented at trial, the court remitted Harris’s compensatory damages to $248,619.57 and concluded she was not entitled to punitive damages. FedEx was not entitled to a new trial because of the court’s evidentiary ruling. View "Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services" on Justia Law

In March 2019, the Waxahachie Police Department (WPD) SWAT Team mistakenly executed a search warrant on the wrong house, which was the home of Karen Jimerson, James Parks, and their two young children, instead of the intended target house. The error was due to Mike Lewis, the WPD SWAT Team Commander, incorrectly identifying the target house. The plaintiffs sued the officers under Section 1983 for violations of the Fourth Amendment and several state laws. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to Lewis on the issue of qualified immunity. The appellate court held that while Lewis's efforts to identify the correct residence were deficient, they did not violate clearly established law. The court found no genuine disputes of material fact, and it concluded that the disputed issue was one of law. The case was remanded for dismissal. View "Jimerson v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his lawsuit against the City of Buffalo and some of its police officers. The plaintiff was arrested and charged with violating a city noise ordinance after he shouted at a police officer, who was driving without headlights, to turn his lights on. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, asserting that his arrest violated his First Amendment right to free speech and amounted to false arrest and malicious prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the district court erred in ruling that the plaintiff's shout was not protected by the First Amendment, given that it was a warning about a public safety issue. The court further concluded that there were genuine issues of fact concerning whether there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, which should have been resolved by a jury rather than at summary judgment.The court vacated the part of the district court's judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment retaliation, as well as his claims related to failure to intervene and respondeat superior. The court affirmed the part of the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim that the noise ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to him. The case was remanded for trial on the reinstated claims. View "Rupp v. City of Buffalo" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada considered whether the Nevada State Engineer had the authority to combine multiple existing hydrographic basins into one "superbasin" for the purposes of water administration and management based on a shared source of water. The State Engineer had combined seven basins into one superbasin, the Lower White River Flow System (LWRFS), after determining that the waters of these basins were interconnected such that withdrawals from one basin affected the amount of water in the other basins. The State Engineer also found that the previously granted appropriations of water exceeded the rate of recharge in the LWRFS. Various entities who owned water rights throughout the new superbasin challenged the State Engineer's decision, claiming that he lacked the authority to manage surface waters and groundwater jointly and that his decision violated their due process rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada held that the State Engineer indeed had the authority to manage surface waters and groundwater conjunctively and to jointly administer multiple basins. The court also found that the State Engineer did not violate the rights holders' due process rights because they received notice and had an opportunity to be heard. The court reversed the lower court's decision that had granted the rights holders' petitions for judicial review and remanded the matter back to the lower court for further proceedings to determine whether substantial evidence supported the State Engineer's factual determinations. View "Sullivan v. Lincoln County Water District" on Justia Law

In this case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court considered whether the claims filed by Adriana Holt, her children, and her mother Beatriz Lukens against Orange County and several deputy sheriffs were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The plaintiffs alleged unlawful search and arrest and brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California state law. The case involved multiple filings and dismissals in different courts, raising the question of whether the tolling provision of the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, applied to their claims.The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were not tolled and were therefore properly dismissed as untimely. The court reasoned that § 1367 tolls the applicable statute of limitations for a federal-law claim that is contained in the same federal court complaint as a supplemental state-law claim and that is “voluntarily dismissed at the same time as or after the dismissal of the [supplemental] claim.” However, this tolling provision does not apply when the supplemental claim is voluntarily dismissed, as occurred in Holt's first suit, or when a supplemental claim is dismissed for improper joinder, as occurred in the separate class action.Finally, the court also held that the plaintiffs' state-law claims were not tolled by a Covid-19 pandemic emergency tolling order and rule because the limitations periods for those claims had already lapsed before either the order or rule went into effect. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims as time-barred. View "HOLT V. COUNTY OF ORANGE" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Louisiana was asked by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on whether the commencement of a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction and venue interrupts prescription as to causes of action, understood as legal claims rather than the facts giving rise to them, not asserted in that suit. This query arose from the case of Randall Kling who initially filed suit in state court alleging his dismissal from the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control was in retaliation for submitting written complaints about workplace and ethics violations. He later filed a complaint in federal district court citing substantially similar facts and seeking relief for violations of his federal First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.The Supreme Court of Louisiana answered the certified question by stating that prescription or the period within which a lawsuit may be filed is interrupted when notice is sufficient to fully inform the defendant of the nature of the claim of the plaintiff, and what is demanded of the defendant. The Court explained that the essence of interruption of prescription by suit is notice to the defendant of the legal proceedings based on the claim involved. The court emphasized that notice is sufficient when it fully informs the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claim, and what is demanded of the defendant. Thus, the court took a balanced approach between a broad interpretation of interruption and a narrow one, placing emphasis on notice to the defendant, addressed on a case-by-case basis. View "KLING VS. HEBERT" on Justia Law