Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A pretrial detainee in the St. Tammany Parish Jail, who has had a prosthetic eye for decades, reported his chronic condition to jail medical staff upon intake. In June 2022, a jail doctor prescribed antibiotics and twice-weekly wound care for an infection in the detainee’s eye socket. Although the detainee was initially scheduled for wound care, he was not taken to his appointments, and his infection worsened over several weeks. The detainee filed multiple grievances, alleging that a deputy failed to escort him to medical care and that a refusal-of-treatment form was falsely completed without his knowledge or signature. After further investigation, jail officials determined that the medical records inaccurately reflected wound care visits, which were actually medication distributions, and ultimately found the detainee’s grievance substantiated.The detainee filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, naming jail officials and medical staff as defendants. The district court, through a magistrate judge, granted a motion to dismiss for some defendants and summary judgment for others, entering final judgment against the detainee and dismissing his claims with prejudice. The court denied the detainee’s motions to compel discovery and to amend his complaint, and did not address some discovery requests before entering judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the magistrate judge committed plain error by treating a report and recommendation as a final judgment before it was formally adopted, thereby denying the detainee a full and fair opportunity for discovery. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the doctor-defendants, affirmed the dismissal of claims against most jail officials, but found that dismissal should have been without prejudice to allow for amendment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "James v. Smith" on Justia Law

A teacher at a public charter school in Utah was terminated after a series of events involving a student and the student's parent. The teacher, a former Air Force veteran, reprimanded the student for disruptive behavior, leading the student to quit the team and report the incident to his father. The parent, dissatisfied with the teacher's conduct, began raising concerns about the teacher's alleged inappropriate behavior, including claims of physical and verbal abuse, to school administrators and at a school board meeting. The parent also communicated these concerns to the school superintendent and, according to the teacher, made a report to local police. Investigations by both the police and the Division of Child and Family Services found no evidence of abuse, and the teacher was ultimately terminated without a stated reason.The teacher filed suit in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), abuse of process, and tortious interference with economic relations. The parent moved for early dismissal under Utah’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), arguing the statute protected his speech and actions. The district court denied the motion, finding UPEPA inapplicable and concluding that the teacher had stated prima facie cases for all claims.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that the district court erred in finding UPEPA did not apply, as the parent’s statements concerned a matter of public concern. The Supreme Court also found that the teacher failed to state prima facie cases for IIED and abuse of process, requiring dismissal of those claims. The court vacated the denial of the special motion as to defamation and tortious interference, remanding for further consideration of whether the teacher could establish a prima facie case, particularly regarding privilege. The court ordered costs and fees related to the motion be awarded as provided by UPEPA. View "Mackey v. Krause" on Justia Law

A former dancer at two adult entertainment clubs in Manhattan filed a class charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging pervasive sexual harassment and a hostile work environment affecting herself and other female dancers. She claimed that the clubs’ policies and practices fostered this environment, including being forced to change in open areas monitored by video and being pressured to engage in sexual acts with customers. After receiving the charge, the EEOC requested information from the clubs, including employee “pedigree” data such as names, demographics, and employment details. The clubs objected, arguing the requests were irrelevant and burdensome, but the EEOC issued subpoenas for the information.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the EEOC’s petition to enforce the subpoenas, finding the requested information relevant to the investigation and not unduly burdensome for the clubs to produce. The clubs appealed and, while the appeal was pending, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to the charging party, who then filed a class action lawsuit in the same district court. The clubs argued that the EEOC lost its authority to investigate and enforce subpoenas once the right-to-sue letter was issued and the lawsuit commenced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the EEOC retains its statutory authority to investigate charges and enforce subpoenas even after issuing a right-to-sue letter and after the charging party files a lawsuit. The court also found that the employee information sought was relevant to the underlying charge and that the clubs had not shown compliance would be unduly burdensome. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s order enforcing the subpoenas. View "EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp." on Justia Law

Jeffery Krueger died following a traffic stop in Oklahoma initiated by Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office deputies. The stop began when deputies suspected Mr. Krueger of minor traffic violations and possible intoxication. After Mr. Krueger stopped his car in a turn lane, deputies forcibly removed him from his vehicle, allegedly pulling him by his hair, slamming his head on the pavement, and repeatedly using tasers as they attempted to handcuff him. Additional law enforcement officers arrived and, according to the plaintiffs, either participated directly or failed to intervene as Mr. Krueger, now handcuffed and prone, was further restrained with leg shackles and a hobble tie. Mr. Krueger stopped breathing at the scene and was later pronounced dead at a hospital.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma reviewed the case after the plaintiffs, Mr. Krueger’s parents and estate representatives, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants, including deputies and police officers, moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment for most defendants, finding that, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there were sufficient grounds to show clearly established constitutional violations. The court found material disputes regarding the amount and duration of force used, including the number of taser applications and the nature of the prone restraint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find the defendants used excessive force both in the initial removal and restraint of Mr. Krueger and in the prolonged prone restraint after he was subdued. The court also held that the failure to intervene in the use of excessive force was clearly established as a constitutional violation. The district court’s orders denying summary judgment were affirmed. View "Krueger v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a former police officer in Dermott, Arkansas, alleged that he was forced to resign in retaliation for reporting a fellow officer’s excessive use of force. The incident in question involved the other officer grabbing an arrestee by the neck while the arrestee was restrained. Subsequently, the officer accused the plaintiff of taking money from a parolee, which the parolee confirmed in a statement. The police chief referred the matter to a prosecutor, who initiated a state police investigation. During this period, the plaintiff’s employment status became unclear, with conflicting statements about whether he was fired or resigned. The plaintiff ultimately resigned after a job offer from another police department was rescinded due to the ongoing investigation. He was later charged with abuse of office and witness bribery, but the charges were dismissed when the parolee could not be located.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and had not suffered an adverse employment action, which was necessary for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for his malicious prosecution claim, as a summons to appear in court did not constitute a seizure. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and found that they failed on the merits, including claims under the Arkansas Whistle Blower Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s voluntary resignation did not amount to an adverse employment action, and that he was not seized under the Fourth Amendment. The court also agreed that the state law claims failed as a matter of law. View "Brown v. City of Dermott Arkansas" on Justia Law

Robert Miller was arrested on July 31, 2019, and died the next day while in custody at the Tarrant County Jail. His wife, Shanelle Jenkins, was not notified by authorities of his death but learned about it several days later through a newspaper article. Jenkins alleges that, despite making several direct requests, she was unable to obtain information from Tarrant County or the Texas Rangers about the circumstances of her husband’s death. Nearly two years after Miller’s death, Jenkins filed a lawsuit against the Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff, alleging wrongful death and excessive force, but her complaint lacked specific factual allegations about how Miller died.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Jenkins’s federal claims with prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. After the dismissal, Jenkins received documents from Tarrant County and the Texas Department of Public Safety that provided more details about Miller’s death. She sought relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but the district court denied her motion, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Jenkins had not exercised due diligence in investigating her claims and that the evidence was not intentionally withheld.Jenkins then filed a new lawsuit on November 30, 2023, against ten individual defendants, asserting similar claims but with more detailed factual allegations. The district court again dismissed her claims, holding they were barred by Texas’s two-year statute of limitations and that equitable tolling did not apply because Jenkins failed to allege fraudulent concealment by the named defendants and did not exercise due diligence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Jenkins’s claims accrued in August 2019 and were time-barred, and that equitable tolling was not warranted. View "Jenkins v. Tahmahkera" on Justia Law

Michael Rivera, a prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by police officers during a traffic stop and subsequent search. Initially, Rivera named the New Castle County Police Department and several unidentified “John Doe” officers as defendants. After the police department identified the officers involved, Rivera amended his complaint to name them specifically.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware screened Rivera’s complaint, dismissed the claim against the police department as frivolous, but allowed the claims against the Doe defendants to proceed. The court ordered the police department to identify the officers, which it did. Rivera then amended his complaint to add the identified officers. The officers moved to dismiss, arguing that the amendment was untimely and did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), because Rivera allegedly knew their identities when he filed the original complaint. The District Court agreed, finding that Rivera “indisputably knew” the officers’ names and thus the amendment did not relate back, rendering the claims untimely. Rivera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and he appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo. The Third Circuit held that the District Court applied the wrong legal standard by focusing on Rivera’s knowledge rather than on what the officers knew or should have known, as required by Rule 15(c) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A. The Third Circuit also found that the District Court improperly resolved factual disputes against Rivera at the motion to dismiss stage. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rivera v. New Castle County Police Department" on Justia Law

A student organization at West Texas A&M University, focused on supporting LGBT+ students, planned a charity drag show to raise funds for a suicide prevention initiative. The event was to be held in a university venue that had previously hosted a wide range of student and community events, including a prior drag show. The organizers took steps to ensure the show would be appropriate for a general audience, restricting lewd content and requiring minors to be accompanied by adults. Shortly before the event, the university president canceled the show, citing concerns that drag performances were discriminatory against women and did not align with the university’s values.Following the cancellation, the student group and two of its officers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow future drag shows on campus. The district court denied the injunction, holding that drag shows were not inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the university president was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing against certain university officials but not others, and rejected the claim of irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the planned drag show was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a clear message of support for the LGBT+ community in its context. The court determined that the university venue was a designated public forum, making the content-based restriction on the drag show subject to strict scrutiny, which the university did not attempt to justify. The court found the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the ongoing ban and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the university president and a vice president, affirmed the denial as to the chancellor for lack of standing, and remanded for entry of the injunction. View "Spectrum WT v. Wendler" on Justia Law

Ferdinand E. Marcos, former President of the Philippines, deposited approximately $2 million in a New York Merrill Lynch account in 1972, which grew to over $40 million. These funds, known as the Arelma Assets, were proceeds of Marcos’s criminal activities. After Marcos’s ouster, multiple parties—including the Republic of the Philippines, a class of nearly 10,000 human rights victims, and the estate of Roger Roxas (from whom Marcos had stolen treasure)—asserted competing claims to these assets. The Republic obtained a forfeiture judgment from a Philippine court and requested the U.S. Attorney General to enforce it under 28 U.S.C. § 2467.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the enforcement application. The court rejected the class’s affirmative defenses, which included arguments based on statute of limitations, subject matter jurisdiction, lack of notice, and fraud. The court also found that Roxas lacked Article III standing because she failed to show a sufficient interest in the Arelma Assets, and denied her leave to amend her answer. The court entered judgment for the Government, allowing the assets to be returned to the Republic of the Philippines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the class failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to any of its affirmative defenses and that Roxas lacked standing to participate as a respondent. The court also upheld the denial of intervention by Golden Budha Corporation, finding its interests adequately represented and lacking standing. The main holding is that the Government’s application to enforce the Philippine forfeiture judgment was timely and proper, and that neither the class nor Roxas could block enforcement or claim the assets. View "In re: Enforcement of Philippine Forfeiture Judgment" on Justia Law

A former federal employee alleged that her union mishandled an arbitration proceeding and discriminated against her based on sex and disability. She claimed that the union’s local president made unwanted sexual advances, disparaged her status as a nursing mother, and ultimately withdrew union support for her grievance against her employer. The employee filed several unfair labor practice (ULP) charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), some of which were dismissed as untimely, and also filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which issued her a right-to-sue letter. She then brought two lawsuits in federal district court: one alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the union and its local, and another, pro se, alleging retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against the union, its local, and two union officials.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed both lawsuits for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) precluded the employee’s claims, holding that her allegations were essentially claims for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which must be pursued exclusively through the FLRA’s administrative process.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the dismissals de novo. The court held that the FSLMRS does not preclude federal employees from bringing Title VII and ADA claims against their unions in federal district court, even when the alleged conduct could also constitute a ULP. The court reasoned that Congress did not intend to displace these specific statutory discrimination remedies with the FSLMRS’s more limited scheme. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the FLSA retaliation claim, finding no indication that Congress intended for such claims against unions to proceed in district court alongside the FSLMRS process. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the Title VII and ADA claims. View "Lucas v. American Federation of Government Employees" on Justia Law