Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, challenged the constitutionality of Louisiana’s Infrastructure Trespass Statute, arguing that amendments to the statute rendered it unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. The statute criminalizes unauthorized entry into critical infrastructure, including pipelines, and imposes significant penalties for violations.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, including the Louisiana Attorney General, the District Attorney of the 16th Judicial District, and the Sheriff of St. Martin Parish. The district court dismissed claims against the Attorney General on sovereign immunity grounds and found that the Advocacy and Landowner Plaintiffs lacked standing. The court also dismissed the Arrested Plaintiffs' as-applied claims as moot due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for their alleged violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims against the Attorney General, agreeing that the Ex Parte Young exception to sovereign immunity did not apply. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Advocacy and Landowner Plaintiffs for lack of standing, finding that their alleged injuries were not traceable to or redressable by the remaining defendants. The court agreed that the Arrested Plaintiffs had standing for their facial challenges but affirmed the dismissal of their as-applied claims as moot.On the merits, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the Infrastructure Trespass Statute was neither impermissibly vague nor violative of the First Amendment. The court found that the statute provided sufficient notice of prohibited conduct and did not authorize arbitrary enforcement. The court also determined that the statute was not overbroad, as it served a substantial governmental interest in protecting critical infrastructure and did not substantially burden protected speech. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "White Hat v. Murrill" on Justia Law

A public benefit corporation, Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admissions (LFRA), challenged local rules of federal district courts in the Ninth Circuit. These rules require attorneys seeking general admission to be members in good standing of the bar of the state where the district court is located. LFRA argued that these rules prevent its members, who are barred in states outside the Ninth Circuit and do not wish to join another state bar, from seeking general admission to these federal district courts.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed LFRA’s amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that LFRA had standing to bring claims on behalf of its members, except for the Sixth Amendment claim, which lacked standing. The court dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim, concluding that the Admission Rules did not violate constitutional, statutory, or procedural grounds as alleged by LFRA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit held that the Admission Rules are constitutional and do not violate separation of powers, federalism principles, the Privileges and Immunities Clauses, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, the Full Faith and Credit Act, the Rules Enabling Act, or procedural due process. The court also found that Rules 1 and 83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not create a private right of action. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint without leave to amend, as the complaint could not be saved by amendment. The court also upheld the denial of LFRA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as procedurally premature. View "Lawyers for Fair Reciprocal Admissions v. United States" on Justia Law

Seven District of Columbia citizen-voters filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, which allows noncitizens to vote in municipal elections. The plaintiffs argued that this law dilutes their votes, discriminates against U.S. citizens, and violates the constitutional right to citizen self-government. The District of Columbia Board of Elections, responsible for implementing the law, was named as the defendant.The case was initially brought in D.C. Superior Court, but the Board removed it to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Board then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The district court agreed with the Board, holding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any individual disadvantage and thus lacked standing. The court dismissed the complaint, characterizing the plaintiffs' grievances as generalized and insufficient to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue because they alleged a concrete and particularized injury: the dilution of their votes due to the expansion of the electorate to include noncitizens. The court distinguished this case from others where plaintiffs failed to show individualized harm. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were specific to their voting power in D.C. local elections and not merely a generalized grievance. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Board's cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Hall v. District of Columbia Board of Elections" on Justia Law

In this case, inmate Kyle Richards alleged that Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, sexually harassed him and other inmates. Richards also claimed that Perttu destroyed his grievance documents and retaliated against him for attempting to file them. Richards sued Perttu under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his First Amendment right to file grievances. Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards had failed to exhaust available grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Magistrate Judge found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Richards was excused from exhausting his claims due to Perttu's interference and held an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Richards's witnesses lacked credibility and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The District Court adopted this recommendation. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when the resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff's substantive case.The Supreme Court of the United States held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that factual disputes regarding legal claims go to the jury. The PLRA is silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, and this silence indicates that the usual practice should be followed. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. View "Perttu v. Richards" on Justia Law

Eric Coomer, Ph.D., the former Director of Product Strategy and Safety at Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., filed a defamation lawsuit against several defendants, including Make Your Life Epic, LLC, Reopen America, LLC, and Clayton Thomas Clark. Joseph Oltmann, a nonparty to the lawsuit, was subpoenaed to testify and produce documents. Oltmann initially appeared for his deposition but left without authorization and later boasted about his actions on his podcast, disparaging the magistrate judge and suggesting violence.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held Oltmann in civil contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena and court orders. The court imposed a $1,000 per day fine until Oltmann complied and ordered him to pay attorney’s fees and costs. Oltmann appealed the Contempt Order, arguing that he properly invoked the newsperson’s privilege and that his due process rights were violated because the district court did not hold a hearing before issuing the Contempt Order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s Contempt Order. The appellate court held that Oltmann waived his arguments by not raising them specifically in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Contempt Order without a second hearing, as the material facts were undisputed. The appellate court further imposed sanctions on Oltmann, ordering him to pay Coomer’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs associated with the appeal, and remanded the case to the district court to determine the amount. View "Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic" on Justia Law

Plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, who frequently posts videos of his interactions with police on YouTube, challenged a New York City Police Department (NYPD) policy that prohibits video recording inside police facilities. Reyes, who had been arrested twice for recording inside police stationhouses, argued that the policy violated his rights under the First Amendment and the New York State and New York City Right to Record Acts (RTRAs). He sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from enforcing the policy and to remove signs stating the policy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Reyes a preliminary injunction based on his state and local law claims, despite finding that he was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim. The court concluded that Reyes demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his RTRAs claims, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored an injunction.The City of New York appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state and local claims and in finding that Reyes met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction or its determination of irreparable harm. However, the court noted that the resolution of whether Reyes is likely to succeed on the merits and whether the public interest favors an injunction depends on the interpretation of the RTRAs.Given the lack of clear guidance from New York courts on whether the RTRAs afford a right to record inside police stationhouses, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does either N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p or N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-189 afford individuals the right to video record law enforcement activities inside public facilities, specifically inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses, notwithstanding the NYPD policy forbidding such recording? The decision on the appeal is reserved pending the response from the New York Court of Appeals. View "Reyes v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Ammar al-Baluchi, a Pakistani national, has been detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay since 2006. He is accused of supporting the September 11, 2001, attacks as a senior member of al-Qaeda. In 2008, al-Baluchi filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court. In 2022, he moved to compel the government to convene a Mixed Medical Commission to assess his eligibility for repatriation due to alleged torture and resulting serious health issues. The district court denied his request, ruling that detainees captured during non-international armed conflicts are not entitled to such examinations under the Third Geneva Convention or Army Regulation 190-8.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially stayed al-Baluchi’s habeas case pending the outcome of his military commission trial. After temporarily lifting the stay to consider his motion for a Mixed Medical Commission, the court denied the motion, leading al-Baluchi to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s nonfinal order. The court found that al-Baluchi did not demonstrate that the denial of his motion had the practical effect of denying injunctive relief or that it caused serious or irreparable harm requiring immediate review. The court noted that even if a Mixed Medical Commission found al-Baluchi eligible for repatriation, the government retained discretion to delay repatriation until the completion of his military commission proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Al-Baluchi v. Hegseth" on Justia Law

Mark Hamilton, the former Chief of the Fire Department of Wilmer, Texas, was terminated after testifying at a probation revocation hearing for a former employee, Craig Lawrence, who had hidden recording devices in fire station bathrooms. Hamilton testified in uniform, drove a city car to the hearing, and did not take leave from work. He claimed his termination was in retaliation for his protected First Amendment activity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Hamilton's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that Hamilton did not state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, as his speech was not protected under the First Amendment. Hamilton appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Hamilton did not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, as his testimony was given pursuant to his official duties as Fire Chief. The court also found that even if Hamilton's speech were protected, the City of Wilmer had adequate justification for treating him differently from any other member of the public due to his use of city resources and uniform during his testimony. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hamilton's claims and denied his request for leave to amend his complaint, finding that any amendment would be futile. View "Hamilton v. City of Wilmer, Texas" on Justia Law

After a welfare check was requested by his fiancée, Joseph Maser was involved in a standoff with police at his suburban Iowa home. Maser had threatened suicide, fired a gun inside his house, and was reportedly intoxicated with access to firearms. Officers attempted to negotiate with Maser for nearly an hour, during which Maser became increasingly agitated and made threats. Maser exited his garage holding a rifle, ignored commands to drop the weapon, and raised the rifle outward from his body. Officer Joshua Van Brocklin, perceiving a threat, shot Maser twice in the chest. Maser survived and subsequently brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer Van Brocklin used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.Initially, Maser filed suit in state court against Officer Van Brocklin, the City of Coralville, and other officers, asserting both state and federal claims. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Following a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court in Burnett v. Smith, which foreclosed excessive force claims under the Iowa Constitution, the district court granted summary judgment on those claims. The district court also granted summary judgment for Officer Van Brocklin on the federal excessive force claim, finding no constitutional violation and awarding qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Van Brocklin’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because Maser’s actions—raising a rifle outward after repeated noncompliance and threats—created an imminent threat of serious harm. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that Maser’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. View "Maser v. City of Coralville, IA" on Justia Law

The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM), representing generic drug manufacturers, challenged a Minnesota law regulating drug prices, Minn. Stat. § 62J.842, arguing it violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The law prohibits manufacturers from imposing excessive price increases on generic or off-patent drugs sold in Minnesota. The district court granted AAM's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely violated the dormant Commerce Clause.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota concluded that AAM was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim, faced a threat of irreparable harm, and that the balance of harms and public interest factors were neutral. Minnesota appealed, contesting the likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harms/public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s ruling for abuse of discretion and its legal conclusions de novo. The court found that the Minnesota law had the impermissible extraterritorial effect of controlling prices outside the state, similar to laws previously struck down by the Supreme Court. The court rejected Minnesota's argument that the law did not control out-of-state prices, noting that it effectively regulated out-of-state transactions if the drugs ended up in Minnesota.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that AAM was likely to succeed on the merits of its dormant Commerce Clause claim. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s assessment of the balance of harms and public interest, noting that protecting constitutional rights is always in the public interest. The preliminary injunction against the Minnesota law was upheld. View "Ass'n for Accessible Medicines v. Ellison" on Justia Law