Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A non-profit organization, Citizens for Constitutional Integrity, sued the Census Bureau, the Department of Commerce, and related officials, alleging that the Bureau failed to proportionately reduce the basis of representation for states in the 2020 Census as required by the Fourteenth Amendment's Reduction Clause. Citizens claimed this failure diluted the voting power of its members in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The organization sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and a writ of mandamus.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court found that Citizens could not demonstrate that its alleged vote dilution injury was traceable to the Bureau's actions. Specifically, the court noted that Citizens failed to show how the Bureau's failure to apply the Reduction Clause directly caused the loss of congressional representation for the states in question. The court also found the data scientist's declaration provided by Citizens unpersuasive, as it did not adequately account for the number of disenfranchised voters in the relevant states.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Citizens did not establish traceability under Article III standards. The court found that Citizens failed to present a feasible alternative methodology for apportionment that would have resulted in a different allocation of seats for New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The court also rejected Citizens's argument that it was entitled to a relaxed standing requirement for procedural-rights cases, concluding that the challenge was substantive rather than procedural. Consequently, the court affirmed the District Court's ruling that Citizens lacked standing to pursue its claims. View "Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. Census Bureau" on Justia Law

In 2019, Joseph Srour was denied a permit to possess rifles and shotguns in his home by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) License Division. Srour subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the New York City Administrative Code and the Rules of the City of New York, particularly the requirement that an applicant have "good moral character" to be issued a permit.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Srour's motion for summary judgment regarding the New York City Administrative Code, enjoining the enforcement of the "good moral character" and "good cause" requirements, and declaring them unconstitutional. The district court did not decide the amount of damages. The City of New York and the NYPD Police Commissioner filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking review of the district court's judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the case was moot because Srour had been granted the rifle and shotgun permit he sought. The court found that there was no reasonable expectation that the City would resume the challenged conduct, as Srour's permit was subject to automatic renewal unless he violated laws or was rearrested. Consequently, the court vacated the district court's judgment enjoining the enforcement of the "good moral character" requirement and declaring it unconstitutional, dismissed the appeal as moot, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Srour's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as moot. View "Srour v. New York City" on Justia Law

In this case, several plaintiffs challenged Hawaii and California laws that restrict the carrying of firearms in various locations, arguing that these laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The laws in question generally prohibit carrying firearms in places such as parks, beaches, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, financial institutions, and private property without explicit consent from the property owner.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted a preliminary injunction against Hawaii's law, enjoining the enforcement of the firearm restrictions in parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings, financial institutions, public beaches, public parks, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol. The court also enjoined the new default rule for private property open to the public. The United States District Court for the Central District of California similarly granted a preliminary injunction against California's law, enjoining the enforcement of firearm restrictions in hospitals, playgrounds, public transit, parks, athletic facilities, places of worship, financial institutions, and private property open to the public.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed these decisions. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part and reversed them in part. The Ninth Circuit held that some places specified by the Hawaii and California laws likely fall within the national tradition of prohibiting firearms at sensitive places, such as bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, parks, and similar areas. However, the court found that other places, such as financial institutions and places of worship, do not fall within this tradition. The court also held that the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent is likely unconstitutional in California but not in Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they enjoin restrictions on firearms at financial institutions, parking lots adjacent to financial institutions, and parking lots shared by government and non-government buildings. The court reversed the preliminary injunctions to the extent that they enjoin restrictions on firearms at bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, beaches, parks, and similar areas, and the new default rule prohibiting the carry of firearms onto private property without consent in Hawaii. View "WOLFORD V. LOPEZ" on Justia Law

Kekai Watanabe, an inmate at the Federal Detention Center in Honolulu, was severely injured during a gang-related assault in July 2021. Despite his serious injuries, including a fractured coccyx and bone chips in surrounding tissue, the prison nurse only provided over-the-counter medication and refused to send him to a hospital. Watanabe was kept in solitary confinement for over two months and repeatedly requested medical attention, which was largely ignored. He was not properly diagnosed until February 2022 and had not seen a specialist by the time of the court proceedings.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii initially allowed Watanabe’s claim against the nurse to proceed but later dismissed it, concluding that no Bivens remedy existed for his Eighth Amendment claim. Watanabe appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Watanabe’s claim did not present a new Bivens context, as it was not meaningfully different from the Supreme Court’s decision in Carlson v. Green, where an implied damages action was recognized under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. The court found that Watanabe’s allegations were sufficiently similar to those in Carlson, thus allowing his Bivens claim to proceed.Additionally, the Ninth Circuit construed Watanabe’s request for injunctive relief related to his ongoing medical care as standalone claims for injunctive relief, not under Bivens. The court remanded the case to the district court to address whether Watanabe may amend his request for injunctive relief and to address any such claims in the first instance. View "WATANABE V. DERR" on Justia Law

The relator, Justin Tjaden, sought a writ of mandamus to have his name placed on the November 5, 2024, general-election ballot as an independent candidate for the office of state representative of Ohio House District 99. Tjaden's petition was found to be 124 valid signatures short of the required number. He argued that the boards of elections exceeded their authority by invalidating signatures as "not genuine" and violated his procedural due process and equal protection rights. Tjaden also contended that the statutory requirement for independent candidates to submit a petition with signatures amounting to at least one percent of registered voters who cast ballots for governor in the 2022 general election was unconstitutional.The Geauga County Board of Elections determined that Tjaden's petition contained 371 valid signatures, which was insufficient to qualify for the ballot. Tjaden attempted to challenge this decision in the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas but was unsuccessful due to procedural issues. He then filed a complaint in the same court and a mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court dismissed his first mandamus action based on the jurisdictional-priority rule but allowed him to file a second mandamus action after his common-pleas-court case was removed to federal court.The Supreme Court of Ohio denied Tjaden's writ of mandamus. The court held that Tjaden did not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, even if all contested signatures were deemed valid. The court also found that Tjaden's procedural due process rights were not violated, as the mandamus action provided him with the necessary process. Additionally, the court declined to address Tjaden's equal protection claim, stating that even if the statute were declared unconstitutional, there would be no statutory requirement for an independent candidate to qualify for the ballot. Thus, the court denied the writ. View "State ex rel. Tjaden v. Geauga County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

The case involves family members of drug abusers suing wholesale distributors of prescription medications. The plaintiffs alleged that the distributors violated state and federal laws by failing to report suspicious orders of controlled substances, which led to the drug abusers' addictions and subsequent harm to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Georgia Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA) and other legal theories.The case was initially tried in a lower court, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of the distributors. The plaintiffs then moved for a new trial, arguing that a juror was dishonest during the selection process and introduced extraneous prejudicial information during deliberations. The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, leading to the current appeal.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial and in refusing to instruct the jury on willful blindness. The distributors cross-appealed, arguing that if the judgment was vacated, the DDLA should be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. The court held that the trial court was authorized to credit the juror's testimony over the plaintiffs' evidence and that the jury was properly instructed on the relevant legal issues. The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "CARDINAL HEALTH INC. v. POPPELL" on Justia Law

The case involves Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC (MAID), which challenged two laws passed by the 2023 Montana Legislature aimed at addressing affordable housing. Senate Bill 323 (SB 323) mandates that duplex housing be allowed in cities with at least 5,000 residents where single-family residences are permitted. Senate Bill 528 (SB 528) requires municipalities to allow at least one accessory dwelling unit on lots with single-family dwellings. MAID, consisting of homeowners from various cities, argued that these laws would negatively impact their property values and quality of life, and filed for declaratory and injunctive relief.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court in Gallatin County granted MAID a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the implementation of the laws. The court found that MAID had standing and had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm, success on the merits, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The court cited concerns about potential impacts on property values and neighborhood character, as well as constitutional issues related to public participation and equal protection.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that MAID did not meet the burden of demonstrating all four factors required for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, the court held that MAID's evidence of potential harm was speculative and did not show a likelihood of irreparable injury. The court also noted that the balance of equities and public interest did not favor the injunction, given the legislative intent to address the housing crisis. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC, v. State" on Justia Law

Sutter’s Place, Inc., which operates Bay 101 Casino, challenged the City of San Jose's annual cardroom regulation fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional tax imposed without voter approval and violated due process. The fee was equally divided between Bay 101 and Casino M8trix, the only two cardrooms in the city. The plaintiff contended that the fee included costs outside the constitutional exception for regulatory charges and that the equal allocation was unfair.The Santa Clara County Superior Court held a bench trial and found the fee valid, covering reasonable regulatory costs and fairly allocated between the cardrooms. The court determined the fee was for regulatory functions, the amount was necessary to cover costs, and the equal allocation was reasonable given the equal number of tables and benefits to both cardrooms. The court also excluded certain expert testimony from the plaintiff and denied a separate due process trial.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It upheld the trial court's finding that the equal allocation of the fee was reasonable but reversed the judgment on other grounds. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not specifically determining whether all costs included in the fee fell within the constitutional exception for regulatory charges. The case was remanded for the trial court to identify and exclude any non-permissible costs from the fee and to conduct further proceedings on the due process claim if necessary. The appellate court also reversed the award of costs to the city and directed the trial court to reassess costs after applying the correct legal standards. View "Sutter's Place, Inc. v. City of San Jose" on Justia Law

Nicholas Somberg, an attorney in Michigan, was representing a criminal defendant in the 52nd Judicial District. During a virtual courtroom conference, Somberg took a picture of the Zoom meeting without the judge's permission and posted it on Facebook. The Oakland County Prosecutor filed a motion to hold Somberg in contempt for violating Michigan court rules that prohibit recording or broadcasting judicial proceedings without permission. The court dismissed the motion on procedural grounds without addressing the rule's merits. Somberg, fearing future contempt actions, sued the prosecutor, seeking a declaration that the rule violates the First Amendment and an injunction to prevent its enforcement against him.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the prosecutor, concluding that the Electronics Rule satisfied First Amendment scrutiny. Somberg appealed the decision, arguing that the rule infringes on his constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that Somberg lacked Article III standing to pursue his claim because he could not demonstrate causation and redressability. The court noted that even if the prosecutor were enjoined from seeking contempt sanctions, the court itself could still hold Somberg in contempt sua sponte. Additionally, third parties could refer Somberg for contempt proceedings. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecutor was not the cause of Somberg's asserted future injury, and an injunction against her would not redress that injury. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Somberg v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The case involves a long-standing litigation concerning the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Plaintiffs, including detainees and the United States, argued that the jail provided constitutionally inadequate housing and medical care. In 2013, a district court approved a consent decree to address these issues, which included a plan to construct a mental health annex, known as Phase III. Despite years of delays, the district court ordered the construction to proceed. No party appealed these orders at the time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana oversaw the case initially. In 2016, the parties entered a stipulated order to develop a plan for appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues. The Compliance Director later proposed the construction of Phase III, which was agreed upon by the former Sheriff and the City. However, the City later sought to explore alternatives, leading to further court orders in 2019 to proceed with Phase III. The City’s subsequent motion to halt the project was denied, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. City of New Orleans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The new Sheriff, Susan Hutson, moved to terminate all orders concerning Phase III, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits the construction of a new jail facility. The district court denied this motion, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could review the denial of the motion but not the underlying orders, as the Sheriff’s motion was not a proper procedural mechanism under the PLRA to challenge the 2019 Orders and Stipulated Order. The appeal was dismissed, and the construction of Phase III continues. View "Anderson v. Hutson" on Justia Law