Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Deandre Arnold, an indigent pro se litigant, attempted to file a civil complaint with an affidavit of indigence through the Fulton County Superior Court’s mandatory e-filing system. His complaint was rejected because it lacked an order authorizing him to file using a waiver payment account. The Clerk’s office informed him that he needed to obtain an order authorizing indigent status by presenting the complaint in person before a superior court judge. Arnold, unable to travel the 25 miles to the Clerk’s office, argued that the Clerk’s policy violated OCGA § 9-15-2 and his constitutional rights.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case after Arnold filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Clerk. Arnold contended that he had no adequate remedy other than filing an original petition in the Supreme Court because he could not appear in person to present a writ of mandanus and affidavit of indigence, and the Clerk would not accept such a filing by mail.The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that it lacked original jurisdiction to grant the relief Arnold sought, as its authority to issue writs of mandamus is limited to matters related to its appellate jurisdiction. The Court determined that the case did not fall within its appellate jurisdiction and transferred the petition to the Court of Appeals for resolution. The Court of Appeals has the authority to grant writs of mandamus in aid of its jurisdiction and will decide whether to require the Clerk to accept Arnold’s affidavit of indigence and civil complaint by mail. View "Arnold v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike, Inc., alleging gender discrimination and hostile workplace claims. During discovery, a collection of internal workplace complaints, known as the Starfish complaints, was produced under a protective order. Three media organizations, including The Oregonian, intervened in the case to gain access to these documents. Plaintiffs' attorney inadvertently sent confidential documents to a reporter from The Oregonian, who refused to return or destroy them upon request.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon initially granted a motion to intervene by the media organizations. However, when the inadvertent disclosure occurred, the magistrate judge ordered The Oregonian to return or destroy the documents. The district court vacated this order, reasoning that it lacked authority to compel a non-party to return the documents. The magistrate judge then denied the motion, and the district court affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court had the inherent authority to order The Oregonian, as an intervenor and thus a party to the case, to return or destroy the confidential documents. The court determined that The Oregonian did not have a First Amendment right to withhold the documents because pretrial discovery proceedings are not public components of the judicial process. The court applied relaxed First Amendment scrutiny and concluded that the district court's exercise of its inherent authority over discovery furthered a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CAHILL V. NIKE, INC." on Justia Law

In December 2015, sixteen-year-old Isaiah Taylor was stopped by Milwaukee police officers Justin Schwarzhuber and Jasen Rydzewski while running through his neighborhood to deliver a turkey. The officers frisked him, searched his bag, and detained him in their police car to check for outstanding warrants and recent robberies. Taylor later sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and racial profiling in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted qualified immunity and summary judgment to the officers on Taylor’s Fourteenth Amendment claim and on the Fourth Amendment claim regarding the initial stop and frisk. However, the court denied qualified immunity on the issue of Taylor’s continued detention, sending it to trial. The jury found the officers not liable, and the court denied Taylor’s motion for post-trial relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Taylor’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, finding insufficient evidence of racial profiling. However, it vacated the summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims related to the initial stop and frisk, concluding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop and frisk based on clearly established law. The court also vacated the jury verdict on the continued detention issue, as it was intertwined with the initial stop's constitutionality, and remanded the case for a new trial on all Fourth Amendment claims. View "Taylor v. Schwarzhuber" on Justia Law

A tenured professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Jason Kilborn, included an expurgated racial slur in a law school exam question. This led to an investigation by university officials, who found that Kilborn had created a racially hostile environment and violated the university's nondiscrimination policy. Consequently, Kilborn was suspended from teaching until he completed a diversity training program and was denied a two percent raise. Kilborn sued several university officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Kilborn's federal claims with prejudice, finding that his speech was not constitutionally protected. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Kilborn appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the dismissal of Kilborn's First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that his speech was constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court's decisions in Connick v. Myers and Pickering v. Board of Education. The court found that Kilborn's speech addressed matters of public concern and that the university's actions could be seen as pretextual. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kilborn's remaining federal claims, including his compelled speech and procedural due process claims. The court also vacated the dismissal of Kilborn's state law claims for further consideration by the district court. View "Kilborn v. Amiridis" on Justia Law

Peyman Roshan, a lawyer and real estate broker, had his law license suspended by the California Supreme Court in 2021 for misconduct. Following this, the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) initiated a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding against his real estate license. Roshan filed a federal lawsuit against the DRE, alleging constitutional violations and seeking to enjoin the DRE's disciplinary action.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Roshan's lawsuit, citing the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The district court held that the DRE's disciplinary proceeding was quasi-criminal in nature and that Roshan could raise his federal claims during the judicial review of the DRE action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly applied the Younger abstention doctrine. The court noted that the state proceedings were ongoing, involved important state interests, and allowed Roshan to raise his federal claims. The court also determined that the DRE proceeding was quasi-criminal because it was initiated by a state agency following an investigation, involved formal charges, and aimed to determine whether Roshan should be sanctioned by suspending or revoking his real estate license.The Ninth Circuit concluded that all the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that Roshan had not demonstrated any bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances that would make abstention inappropriate. Therefore, the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case was proper, and the dismissal of Roshan's lawsuit was affirmed. View "ROSHAN V. MCCAULEY" on Justia Law

In 2020, the Vermont Superior Court transitioned to electronic filing and adopted a policy that delayed public access to newly filed civil complaints until a court clerk reviewed them for compliance with technical requirements and the absence of unredacted confidential information. Plaintiffs, consisting of news and media organizations, challenged this practice, claiming it violated their First Amendment right of access to court documents.The United States District Court for the District of Vermont held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs. The court found that Vermont’s pre-access review process violated the First Amendment and issued a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from withholding complaints until the completion of the review process. The Defendants, administrators and clerks of the Vermont Superior Court, appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that Vermont’s practice, as reviewed, violated the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. However, the appellate court found that the terms of the permanent injunction were not supported by the court’s findings. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment to the extent it found the practice violated the First Amendment but vacated the permanent injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings to reconsider the terms of an appropriate injunction. The court also addressed and rejected the Defendants' arguments regarding abstention and mootness. View "Courthouse News Service v. Corsones" on Justia Law

A church in Washington, Cedar Park Assembly of God, challenged the state's Reproductive Parity Act (Parity Act), which mandates insurance carriers to cover all federally approved contraceptives and, if maternity care is included, abortions. The church argued that this law violated its First Amendment rights and religious autonomy because it could not find a comparable health plan that excluded abortion coverage after its insurer, Kaiser Permanente, stopped offering such a plan.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the state officials, Myron Kreidler and Jay Inslee, who were sued in their official capacities. The district court found that the church did not have standing to challenge the Parity Act because it could not demonstrate that its inability to obtain a suitable health plan was directly caused by the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and vacated the district court's summary judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The Ninth Circuit held that Cedar Park Assembly of God failed to establish that its injury was traceable to the Parity Act or that invalidating the Act would redress its injury. The court noted that Washington's conscientious-objection statute allows insurers to accommodate religious objections, and nothing in the Parity Act prevents insurers from offering plans that exclude abortion coverage. The court concluded that the church's injury was due to the independent decisions of insurers, not the Parity Act, and thus, the church lacked standing to sue. View "CEDAR PARK ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON V. KREIDLER" on Justia Law

Jason Wayne Gowen, a pretrial detainee at the Lynchburg Adult Detention Center, was placed in solitary confinement for 125 days after complaining about hot conditions in his cell and encouraging other inmates to do the same. Gowen filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation for his grievances and his Fourteenth Amendment rights for being placed in solitary confinement without due process.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that he failed to show a causal connection between his grievances and the adverse actions taken against him. The court later granted summary judgment to the officers on Gowen’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gowen adequately alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim by showing that he engaged in protected activity, faced adverse action, and established a causal connection through temporal proximity and the officers' awareness of his grievances. The court also determined that Gowen did not forfeit his argument regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies, as his verified complaint contained sufficient evidence of his attempts to use the grievance process and the officers' failure to respond.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Gowen’s First Amendment retaliation claim and vacated the summary judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s findings. View "Gowen v. Winfield" on Justia Law

Kurt Beathard, a football coach at Illinois State University (ISU), was terminated from his position as offensive coordinator after posting a handwritten message on his office door that read, “All Lives Matter to Our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.” This occurred during a period of tension and unrest on the ISU campus following the death of George Floyd. Beathard alleges that his termination was due to this personal speech, which he claims is protected by the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois reviewed the case. The defendants, Larry Lyons and Brock Spack, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, stating that factual development was necessary before resolving the question of qualified immunity. The court found that Beathard had made a viable claim that his speech was personal and protected, but it was premature to engage in the Pickering balancing test at the pleading stage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court had not made a definitive ruling on the qualified immunity defense but had instead postponed the decision pending further factual development. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that interlocutory orders, such as the denial of a motion to dismiss, are generally not immediately appealable unless they conclusively determine the issue of qualified immunity, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction. View "Rogers v. Byroad" on Justia Law

In 2016, a fourteen-year-old boy was involuntarily committed, disqualifying him from possessing firearms. Eight years later, he petitioned the district court to restore his firearm rights under Iowa Code section 724.31. The district court found that the statutory requirements were met and restored his firearm rights. The State appealed the decision.The Iowa District Court for Monona County initially reviewed the case and granted the petition to restore the petitioner’s firearm rights. The State then appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that the restoration requirements were not met and questioning the State’s right to appeal the decision.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and first addressed whether the State had the right to appeal the restoration order. The court concluded that the State did have the right to appeal under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.103(1). The court then reviewed the merits of the case de novo and found that the petitioner had met the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not likely act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting the relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The court affirmed the district court’s order restoring the petitioner’s firearm rights. View "In re N.F." on Justia Law