Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2017, the County initiated an administrative tax foreclosure against BSI. The County Board of Revision (BOR) issued its final adjudication of foreclosure in June 2019. Because the County had opted for the alternative right of redemption, BSI had 28 days to pay the taxes before the County took title to the property. Days later, BSI filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, which automatically stayed the BOR’s final judgment and 28-day redemption period. The bankruptcy court granted the County relief from the stay on January 17, 2020. The BOR determined that the statutory redemption period expired on January 21, 2020. On January 30, rather than sell the property, the County transferred it to its land bank (Ohio Rev. Code 323.78.1). When a county sells foreclosed property at auction, it may not keep proceeds beyond the taxes the former owner owed; if the county transfers the property to the land bank, “the land becomes ‘free and clear of all impositions and any other liens.’”BSI filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that a significant difference between the appraised value of the property and the amount that the County alleged BSI owed meant that the County’s action violated the Takings Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the two-year statute of limitations. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The limitations period began to run when the redemption period ended on January 21, 2020. If BSI paid its delinquent taxes during that period, the County would have been prohibited from taking the property. View "Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, Ohio" on Justia Law

This case started more than fifty years ago when Minnie Liddell sued to desegregate the St. Louis public school system. The NAACP joined the lawsuit, and the State of Missouri (among others) became a defendant. The parties struck a deal that lasted until 1999 when they agreed to end Missouri’s remedial obligations. The Missouri Legislature ratified the parties’ settlement agreement and created a charter-school option. A group of charter schools complained to the Missouri Legislature, which altered the funding formula in 2006. The revised formula, part of Senate Bill 287, is what has led to the current dispute. The St. Louis Public School District and one of the plaintiffs asked the district court to enforce the settlement agreement by having Missouri reimburse it for the special-sales-tax revenue it had lost under the new funding formula. The district court sided with Missouri, and both sides appealed. Plaintiffs continued to believe that the St. Louis Public School District should receive all the special-sales-tax revenue. And Missouri argued that the desegregation-spending condition finds no support in the settlement agreement.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment but vacated the part requiring charter schools to spend those funds on “desegregation measures.” The court explained that there has been no “disproportionate adverse financial impact” on the St. Louis Public School District because it never had a right to keep all the special-sales-tax revenue for itself. Moreover, the court rejected the argument that allowing charter schools to spend their money as they see fit is inconsistent with the “purpose” of the settlement agreement. View "Deric Liddell v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff spent more than twelve years in state prison because of his wrongful conviction for two murders. In 2015, the state district court granted the Harris County District Attorney’s motion to dismiss the charges against Plaintiff and Plaintiff was released from prison. Plaintiff filed a petition with the Texas Office of the Comptroller for compensation under the Tim Cole Act, which provides state compensation to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of state crimes in state courts. His petition was denied because (1) it was not based on a finding that Plaintiff was “actually innocent,” (2) Plaintiff had not received a pardon, and (3) the district attorney had not filed a qualifying motion. While Plaintiff was pursuing compensation under the Tim Cole Act, he brought a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action in federal district court. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the remainder of Plaintiff’s 1983 claims.   The Fifth Circuit previously certified a question to the Texas Supreme Court in this matter, asking whether the Tim Cole Act bars maintenance of a federal lawsuit involving the same subject matter that was filed before the claimant received compensation under the Tim Cole Act. Having received a response from the Texas Supreme Court in the affirmative, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In light of this clarified meaning of Section 103.153(b) of the Tim Cole Act, the court analyzed the district court’s grant of Defendants summary judgment motion and found that Plaintiff’s federal lawsuit is barred by his acceptance of Tim Cole Act compensation. View "Brown v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

This case involves an appeal by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education (“CMS”) and cross-appeal by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of his child, A.B. Plaintiff filed an administrative action in North Carolina, alleging that CMS violated the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), by failing to provide A.B. with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) through an individualized education plan (“IEP”). The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) dismissed Plaintiff’s action as time-barred by a one-year statute of limitations. CMS filed an original civil action in district court, seeking a judicial determination that the statute of limitations barred Plaintiff’s administrative action. Plaintiff and A.B. filed a counterclaim, asking the district court to decide the merits of the underlying IDEA claim. The district court agreed with the SHRO and held that the statute of limitations did not bar Plaintiff’s IDEA claim, but it held that Plaintiff needed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing the merits to federal court. Both parties appealed.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding as to CMS’s appeal and held that the statute of limitations does not bar Plaintiff’s IDEA claim. But, because Plaintiff’s counterclaim is compulsory, the court concluded that he need not exhaust. Therefore, the court reversed on that issue and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. The court explained that the Plaintiff was prevented from filing a timely administrative petition because CMS withheld information it was required to provide him. Therefore, his IDEA petition was not barred by the statute of limitations. View "Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education v. Aleah Brady" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed a one-year contract to teach criminal justice courses at Spartanburg Methodist College (SMC). Less than a year later, SMC decided not to renew Plaintiff’s contract and terminated her shortly thereafter. Plaintiff brought a mix of state and federal law claims against SMC, essentially arguing that her contract nonrenewal and termination were unlawful. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of SMC on all federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff appealed. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Plaintiff accused SMC of discrimination, retaliation, and engaging in an unlawful health inquiry. Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), she accused SMC of retaliation.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in analyzing the case, it becomes clear that Plaintiff’s retaliation claims cannot succeed. SMC offers nonretaliatory reasons for not renewing Plaintiff’s contract and terminating her employment, and she is unable to demonstrate that SMC’s reasons are pretextual. Further, the court explained that Plaintiff’s claim of pretext is undermined by the fact that the primary decision-makers at SMC were not aware of Plaintiff’s ADA or Title IX-protected activity. Second, any notion of pretext is further dispelled by the fact that SMC’s explanations have been consistent throughout. Moreover, the court explained that Plaintiff cannot show that SMC refused to make an accommodation because she cannot show that she ever properly requested one. Her failure-to-accommodate claim fails for this reason. View "Summer Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist College" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a wrongful-termination action against her former employer—the North Carolina Department of Justice—and two former supervisors in their official and individual capacities. The district court dismissed some claims as barred by sovereign immunity and dismissed the entirety of the complaint as time-barred.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed the uncontested dismissal of the North Carolina Department of Justice and the uncontested dismissal of the official-capacity claims against the individual Defendants for money damages. But because the statute of limitations for the remaining claims is four years and not three years as the district court found, the court explained it must otherwise vacate the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the individual Defendants from the action.   The court explained that here, Plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action for wrongful termination in violation of Section 1981. A wrongful termination claim is based on post-contract-formation conduct. The court reasoned that as Defendants correctly recognized at oral argument, it would not have been possible for Plaintiff to bring this action prior to December 1, 1990, because, before that date, Section 1981 was limited to discrimination in contract formation and enforcement. In 1991, Congress expanded Section 1981 to include discrimination post-contract formation. Therefore, the 1991 amendment to Section 1981 “made possible” this Section 1983 action, and the four-year catchall statute of limitations provided by Section 1658 applies. View "Margaret Chambers v. North Carolina Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, one day before the expiration of the statutory limitations period, initiated suit pro se against federal prison officials on behalf of his deceased mother’s estate. Plaintiff, who had unsuccessfully attempted to retain counsel before filing suit, did not know that he could not represent his mother’s estate pro se and needed, instead, to secure legal representation. Several months later, but before responsive pleadings were filed by Defendants, he retained counsel who entered an appearance and filed an amended complaint on behalf of the estate reasserting the original cause of action, asserting additional causes of action, and adding the United States as a defendant. Plaintiff assumed that retaining counsel and filing an amended complaint corrected his original mistake. The district court disagreed and dismissed the suit.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The court explained that while Plaintiff was not legally authorized under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654 to represent the Estate pro se, the district court erred in dismissing the case without first providing Plaintiff an opportunity to rectify his mistake by obtaining counsel. Once properly represented, the Estate was entitled to file the amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1). Further, the FTCA claims asserted therein were timely, and the Bivens claims relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint. Therefore, the Estate’s claims can proceed. View "Grant Sunny Iriele v. Richard Carroll Griffin, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from Plaintiff’s suit against the City of Harahan (“the City”) for its alleged deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In October 2019, the Harahan Police Department (“HPD”) Chief of Police determined that Plaintiff was guilty of numerous offenses. Plaintiff was entitled to a fifteen-day appeal window of the Chief’s disciplinary determinations. Plaintiff exercised his right to appeal a week after the charges. However, the Chief emailed the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s office (“JPDA”) to inform it of his disciplinary action against Plaintiff before he exercised his right. Plaintiff brought a civil rights suit against the City for violation of his procedural due process rights, stigma-plus-infringement, and defamation. He included Louisiana state law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence. The City moved to dismiss his Section 1983 claims under Rule 12(c). The primary issue is whether the district court erroneously determined that Plaintiff had a liberty interest in his “future employment as a law enforcement officer.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the City’s Rule 12(c) motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s due process claim. The court explained that Plaintiff’s alleged liberty interest in his career in law enforcement has no basis in Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit precedent. Moreover, he does not provide a different constitutional anchor for this proposed liberty interest. Because he fails to state facts supporting the violation of a cognizable liberty interest, he fails to plead a due process violation. Furthermore, the court declined to address the adequacy of the process he received. View "Adams v. City of Harahan" on Justia Law

During a routine traffic stop, Houston Police Officer fatally shot a man. Plaintiffs, including the parents and estate of the victim, brought multiple claims against the officer who fatally shot the man, two other police officers, and the city. The individual defendants claimed qualified immunity. The district court, in ruling on a motion to dismiss in response to Plaintiffs’ complaint, dismissed Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and requested reassignment to a different district judge. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Plaintiffs that the dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against Defendant for excessive force, denial of medical care, and unlawful arrest was an error. The court reversed and remanded those claims. The court explained that taking as true that Defendant had no reason to believe the man was armed and that the shooting officer knew the man was seriously injured and likely could not move, a police officer would know, under these precedents, that to handcuff the man was an arrest without probable cause under clearly established law. The court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims is affirmed. The court denied, as moot, Plaintiffs’ request for reassignment to a new judge. View "Allen v. Hays" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns whether several organizations may sue the governor and attorney general of Florida in federal court to challenge a state law that requires local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials. The state law provides that local officials shall support the enforcement of federal immigration law and cooperate with federal immigration initiatives and officials and that local officials may transport aliens subject to an immigration detainer to federal custody. Several plaintiff organizations sued the Florida governor and the Florida attorney general to enjoin enforcement of the law. The organizations alleged that the provisions about support and cooperation were adopted with the intent to discriminate based on race and national origin in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. And they maintained that the transport provision is preempted by federal law. After a bench trial, the district court permanently enjoined the governor and attorney general from enforcing compliance with these provisions.The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that this controversy is not justiciable because the organizations lack standing. The organizations have not established a cognizable injury and cannot spend their way into standing without an impending threat that the provisions will cause actual harm. Moreover, the organizations’ alleged injury is neither traceable to the governor or attorney general nor redressable by a judgment against them because they do not enforce the challenged provisions. Instead, local officials, based on state law, must comply with federal immigration law. View "City of South Miami, et al v. Governor of the State of Florida, et al" on Justia Law