Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The Arkansas Board of Corrections filed a complaint against the Governor of Arkansas, the Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, and the Arkansas Department of Corrections, challenging the constitutionality of Acts 185 and 659 of 2023. The Board argued that these acts unlawfully transferred its power to manage the Department of Corrections to the Governor and the Secretary, in violation of amendment 33 of the Arkansas Constitution. The Board sought a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of the challenged legislation.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction, finding that the Board demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. The court also denied motions to dismiss the Board’s complaint and to disqualify the Board’s special counsel. The appellants, including the Governor and the Secretary, appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing that the Board failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and denied the appellants' motion to remand with instructions to vacate the preliminary injunction and dismiss as moot. The court found that the dispute was not moot despite the firing of Secretary Profiri, as the Board's complaint concerned the constitutionality of the legislation, not the individual holding the Secretary position. The court also dismissed the appellants' motion to disqualify the Board’s counsel, as it was outside the scope of interlocutory review.The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Board demonstrated irreparable harm in the absence of the preliminary injunction. The court emphasized that the dispute over the Board’s authority would continue until the constitutionality of the challenged legislation was resolved. View "Sanders v. Arkansas Board of Corrections" on Justia Law

T.M. has a medical condition that causes psychosis when she ingests gluten. After an episode in 2023, she was involuntarily committed to Baltimore Washington Medical Center. Despite her and her father's request for voluntary admission, an administrative hearing led to her involuntary commitment. A clinical review panel approved forcibly injecting T.M. with antipsychotic medication, a decision affirmed by a Maryland administrative law judge. T.M. and the medical center later reached an oral agreement for her release, which was formalized in a consent order by a state court. The consent order required T.M. to follow certain conditions, including taking prescribed medications and dismissing other lawsuits.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed T.M.'s claims, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over T.M.'s claims and dismissed the parents' claims for failure to state a claim. T.M.'s claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the parents' claims were dismissed without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of T.M.'s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court held that T.M. was a state court loser seeking to overturn a state court judgment, which is barred by the doctrine. The court vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded with instructions to modify the judgment to dismiss T.M.'s claims without prejudice. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the parents' claims for failure to state a claim, noting that the complaint did not allege a violation of their First Amendment rights. View "T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation" on Justia Law

The defendant was previously convicted of murder and criminal possession of a firearm. This court reversed the murder conviction due to the prosecutor's improper comments on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, violating Doyle v. Ohio. The defendant then moved to dismiss the murder charge, arguing that double jeopardy protections barred a retrial because the prosecutor intended to prevent an acquittal that was imminent without the impropriety.The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant did not establish that the prosecutor intended to prevent an acquittal. The court based its decision on the trial transcripts and this court's previous decision, which concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The defendant appealed, renewing his argument that the double jeopardy clause barred a retrial and asserting that the Connecticut constitution provided broader protections.The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the prosecutor engaged in impropriety with the intent to prevent an acquittal that the prosecutor believed was imminent. The court noted that the evidence at trial, although not overwhelming, was sufficient to support a conviction, and the prosecutor's actions did not indicate an intent to provoke a mistrial or prevent an acquittal. The court also declined to overrule its previous decisions in State v. Colton and State v. Michael J., maintaining that the Connecticut constitution does not provide broader double jeopardy protections than the federal constitution. View "State v. Patrick M." on Justia Law

Leslie Torgerson filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Roberts County, South Dakota, and several individuals, including County Sheriff Tyler Appel, County Deputies Zachary Angerhofer and Wesley Bowsher, his adopted son Ross Torgerson, and his ex-wife Terri Torgerson. Torgerson alleged violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and civil conspiracy. He also asserted a Monell claim against the County, a state-law claim for common law battery against Ross, and a state-law intentional-infliction-of-emotional distress claim against Deputy Angerhofer, Deputy Bowsher, Ross, and Terri. These claims stemmed from a domestic dispute involving Torgerson, Ross, and Terri.The defendants moved for summary judgment on Torgerson’s claims. The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The court concluded that Torgerson failed to state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, as he did not plead that he possessed a constitutional interest that had been violated. The court also determined that Torgerson’s civil conspiracy claim failed due to the lack of a stated constitutional interest and insufficient facts showing a conspiracy. Consequently, Torgerson’s Monell claim against the County also failed. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, considering them to be purely state-related issues.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Torgerson did not suffer a deprivation of liberty as he was not charged or prosecuted for any crime, thus failing to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the civil conspiracy and Monell claims, as there was no underlying constitutional violation. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. View "Torgerson v. Roberts County of South Dakota" on Justia Law

Mary Doe, a social worker proceeding under a pseudonym, challenged New York’s Reproductive Health Act (RHA), arguing it violated constitutional rights. Doe sought to represent a class of viable fetuses, claiming the RHA’s decriminalization of abortion and elimination of fetal homicide laws harmed them. She also sought to amend her complaint post-judgment to include a specific fetus, "Baby Nicholas," alleging he faced harm due to the RHA.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed Doe’s claims for lack of standing, denying her motion to be appointed as "next friend" to the fetuses, citing her lack of a significant relationship with them. The court also denied her post-judgment motion to amend the complaint, finding it futile as Baby Nicholas lacked standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that the district court erred in requiring a significant relationship for next friend appointments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). However, it affirmed the dismissal of Doe’s claims on the grounds that she failed to identify or describe any specific member of the viable fetus class, thus failing to establish a live case or controversy under Article III.Regarding the post-judgment motion, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial, concluding that Baby Nicholas lacked standing. The court found that the alleged risks to Baby Nicholas were not imminent and traceable to the RHA, as required for standing. The potential harm from a third party was not sufficiently connected to the RHA’s provisions.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, maintaining the dismissal of Doe’s claims and denying the motion to amend the complaint. View "Doe v. Hochul" on Justia Law

A group of appellants, including Firearms Owners Against Crime and two firearms dealers, filed a case against the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) Commissioner, alleging that PSP was not complying with the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. The appellants claimed that PSP was intentionally understaffing its Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) Operations Section, leading to significant delays in background checks for firearm purchases, sometimes exceeding seven hours. They argued that these delays violated the statutory requirement for "instantaneous" or "immediate" background checks and caused financial harm to firearms dealers due to canceled transactions.The Commonwealth Court initially issued a preliminary injunction, finding that PSP had a statutory duty to employ sufficient personnel to ensure compliance with the Act and that the delays were causing financial harm to the dealers. However, the court later sustained PSP's preliminary objections, ruling that the statute did not specify a mandatory timeframe for background checks and that the operational decisions regarding staffing were discretionary. The court also dismissed the appellants' request for a refund of the $2.00 background check fee, as the statute did not provide for such refunds.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and held that while the statute did not require "instantaneous" responses, it did mandate that PSP provide results as quickly as possible with available resources. The court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's denial of injunctive and mandamus relief, as these would compel affirmative action barred by sovereign immunity. However, the court reversed the denial of declaratory relief, allowing the appellants to seek a judicial declaration of PSP's duties under the Act. The court also vacated the order denying leave to amend the petition, allowing the appellants to include new allegations regarding PSP's response to the preliminary injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Firearms Owners v. Comm'r of PSP" on Justia Law

Four businesses involved in the cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana within Massachusetts, in compliance with state laws, sued the Attorney General of the United States in 2023. They claimed that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) exceeded Congress's powers under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the CSA against their intrastate activities.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld the CSA's application to intrastate marijuana activities under the Commerce Clause, was controlling. The District Court also found no precedent for recognizing a fundamental right to cultivate, process, and distribute marijuana, thus rejecting the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The First Circuit held that the CSA's regulation of intrastate commercial marijuana activities was within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court found that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that intrastate marijuana activities substantially affect interstate commerce. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs' substantive due process claim, holding that there is no fundamental right to cultivate, manufacture, possess, and distribute marijuana. The court emphasized that historical practices and recent state legislative trends do not establish such a fundamental right. View "Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Carter W. Page filed a lawsuit against the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and several current and former FBI officials. Page alleged that the FBI unlawfully obtained four warrants to electronically surveil him under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and leaked information obtained from these warrants to the press, causing him reputational harm and lost business opportunities. The district court dismissed Page's claims, finding them either time-barred or insufficiently pleaded.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Page's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Page's FISA claims were time-barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations and that his claims were insufficiently pleaded. The court also dismissed Page's Patriot Act claim against the United States, with the majority concluding it was time-barred and the partial dissent finding it legally insufficient. Additionally, the court dismissed Page's Bivens claim and Privacy Act claims for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of Page's FISA and Patriot Act claims as time-barred. The court held that Page had actual or inquiry notice of his FISA claims by April 2017, more than three years before he filed his complaint in November 2020. The court also found that Page's Patriot Act claim was barred because he failed to file his administrative claim with the FBI within two years of its accrual. The court concluded that Page had sufficient information by April 2017 to discover the basis for his claims, making them time-barred. View "Page v. Comey" on Justia Law

Elsa M. Tronsrue filed for dissolution of marriage from George M. Tronsrue III, and George filed a counterpetition. In 1992, the Du Page County circuit court entered a judgment for dissolution of marriage, incorporating a marital settlement agreement that required George to pay Elsa one-half of the marital portion of his federal veterans’ disability payments. In 2019, George sought to terminate these payments, arguing that the division of his benefits was void under federal law. Elsa moved to dismiss George’s petition, and the circuit court granted her motion, found George in contempt for non-payment, and ordered him to pay Elsa’s attorney fees.The appellate court, with one justice dissenting, affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the marital settlement agreement was not void despite potentially violating federal law, as the circuit court had jurisdiction over the dissolution proceedings. The dissenting justice argued that federal law preempted the agreement, rendering it void. In a related order, the appellate court also affirmed the contempt finding, reasoning that George was required to make the payments because the judgment was not void. The dissenting justice again argued that the provision was void, providing George with a compelling justification for non-compliance.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgments. The court held that federal law did not preempt the state law authorizing the marital settlement agreement, as George voluntarily agreed to use his disability benefits to pay Elsa after receiving them. The court also found that the circuit court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the judgment of dissolution, and thus, the judgment was not void. Consequently, the court upheld the award of attorney fees to Elsa for George’s failure to comply with the agreement. View "In re Marriage of Tronsrue" on Justia Law

A couple, the Marons, alleged that Florida's Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They claimed that the Act allowed the state to take their unclaimed property without compensating them for the earnings accrued while the property was in the state's custody. The Act requires holders of unclaimed property to deliver it to the state's Department of Financial Services, which then uses the property for public purposes, including investing it. The Marons argued that they were entitled to these earnings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Marons' suit. The court reasoned that the state could constitutionally escheat the property altogether, so it could also keep the property in its custody without compensating for the earnings. The court also addressed jurisdictional issues, concluding that the Marons had standing and that their claim was not fully barred by sovereign immunity, but ultimately found that the Marons failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction over the Marons' takings claim, as the Marons had standing, the claim was ripe, and it was not barred by sovereign immunity. However, the appellate court disagreed with the district court's analysis on the merits. The appellate court held that the Act did not transfer title of the unclaimed property to the state, but merely placed it in the state's custody. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the Marons' property was directly appropriated by the state and whether the Act provided just compensation. View "Maron v. Chief Financial Officer of Florida" on Justia Law