Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Delaware residents and organizations challenged two new state gun laws in federal court. One law bans the possession, manufacture, sale, and transport of "assault weapons," while the other bans magazines that hold more than seventeen rounds. The plaintiffs argued that these laws violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware consolidated three related cases and held a preliminary-injunction hearing. The plaintiffs did not present live witnesses or evidence that Delaware had attempted to enforce the laws against them. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits because the laws were consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. It also found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm, as they still had access to other means of self-defense. Consequently, the court denied the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court's decision. The appellate court emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted automatically, even if the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm, as they did not provide evidence that the laws were being enforced against them or that they had an urgent need for the banned firearms and magazines. The court also noted that the plaintiffs delayed seeking the injunction, which undermined their claim of urgency. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs had other avenues for prompt relief, such as an accelerated trial. View "Delaware State Sportsmens Association Inc v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Brian Threlkeld, after serving a prison sentence for sexually assaulting a minor, was civilly committed by the State of Wisconsin as a sexually violent person in 2008. In 2020, the state agreed he was eligible for supervised release, contingent on finding suitable housing in Kenosha County. However, Kenosha County has not been able to identify compliant housing, leaving Threlkeld still committed. Frustrated, Threlkeld filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the state’s housing criteria violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and sought to enjoin the enforcement of these criteria.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin abstained from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, citing ongoing state proceedings to identify suitable housing for Threlkeld. The court emphasized that these proceedings were civil enforcement actions, making federal intervention inappropriate. Additionally, the court noted that Threlkeld could raise his constitutional claims in the state court proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court agreed that Younger abstention was appropriate due to the ongoing state efforts to find compliant housing. Moreover, the court identified a fundamental flaw in Threlkeld’s federal lawsuit: he named the Wisconsin Secretary of Health Services as the defendant, who does not have the authority to provide the relief sought. The court concluded that the Secretary lacked a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the housing criteria, making the lawsuit against her improper under Ex parte Young. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Peshek v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Eric Cohen, experiencing a psychotic episode, attacked his girlfriend and fled into the cold waters of Portland's Back Cove, where he eventually drowned from hypothermia. His estate sued the City of Portland and several members of its police and fire departments, alleging violations of Cohen's substantive due process rights due to a failure to rescue him from a state-created danger and inadequate crisis intervention training.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the state-created danger claims against two police officers, Sergeants Christopher Gervais and Michael Rand, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the officers' actions did not create or enhance the danger to Cohen. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment to a firefighter, Ronald Giroux, and the City of Portland. The court concluded that Giroux's actions did not cause Cohen's death and that the City could not be held liable for failure to train its employees since no individual defendant was found to have violated Cohen's constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that neither Gervais nor Rand's actions constituted an affirmative act that created or enhanced the danger to Cohen. The court also found that Giroux's threat did not factually or legally cause Cohen's death. Finally, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the City of Portland, as there was no predicate constitutional violation by any individual defendant to support a failure-to-train claim. View "Cohen v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

The case involves Michelle Gilbank, who lost custody of her daughter, T.E.H., in state court proceedings in Wisconsin. Gilbank alleged that various officials involved in those proceedings violated her federal constitutional rights. The events began when Gilbank, who had a history of drug use, moved into her ex-partner Ian Hoyle's apartment. Following an anonymous tip, police and social workers investigated and found evidence of Gilbank's drug use. On August 21, 2018, Gilbank was arrested for drug possession, and her daughter was temporarily placed with Hoyle. Subsequent state court hearings resulted in the continued placement of T.E.H. with Hoyle until Gilbank regained custody in March 2020.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that some of Gilbank’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. The court also ruled that the remaining claims failed on the merits, including claims of unreasonable search, denial of due process, and unlawful eviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case en banc. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred claims based on injuries caused by state court judgments. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the merits for claims not barred by Rooker-Feldman, including those related to the urinalysis, interrogation without an attorney, and the removal of T.E.H. The court found that Gilbank had consented to the urinalysis, that her Fifth Amendment rights were not violated as her statements were not used in a criminal proceeding, and that there was no seizure of T.E.H. by government actors. The court also rejected the existence of a "fraud exception" to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. View "Gilbank v. Wood County Department of Human Services" on Justia Law

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Delaware issued a series of emergency orders that included restrictions on religious services. These restrictions, which were lifted by June 2020, limited in-person worship to ten people and imposed various other mandates. Over 18 months later, two religious leaders filed suit in the Court of Chancery seeking injunctive relief against these restrictions, which were no longer in effect. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of future harm.The plaintiffs then transferred their action to the Superior Court, seeking declaratory judgment and damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights. The Superior Court dismissed the claims, ruling that the requests for declaratory relief were not justiciable because the restrictions had been lifted and there was no ongoing controversy. Additionally, the court found that the Governor was immune from the damages claims under the State Tort Claims Act and the doctrine of qualified immunity.On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court agreed that the plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable apprehension of future harm, which is necessary for injunctive relief. The Court also held that the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory judgment were not justiciable because there was no ongoing controversy and the alleged harm could not be redressed by a declaratory judgment. Finally, the Court upheld the Superior Court's finding that the Governor was immune from damages claims, as his actions were discretionary and taken in good faith during an unprecedented public health crisis. View "In re Covid-Related Restrictions on Religious Services" on Justia Law

Bilal Hankins, a passenger in a car with two other youths, was driving slowly at night looking for a neighbor’s lost dog. Hankins asked Officer Kevin Wheeler, who was on patrol for a local private security district, for assistance in finding the dog. Later, Officer Wheeler and another officer, Officer Ramon Pierre, stopped the car without reasonable suspicion and approached it with guns drawn. Hankins brought claims under Sections 1983 for unreasonable seizure, excessive force, constitutional conspiracy, supervisory liability, and Monell claims, along with related state-law claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana limited discovery to the issue of qualified immunity. The district court concluded that there was no question of material fact as to whether there was an underlying constitutional violation of either Hankins’ right to be free from an unlawful seizure or his right to be free from excessive, unlawful force. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, as each federal claim relied on an underlying constitutional violation. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that material fact disputes precluded summary judgment on the seizure claim. The court held that the factors relied upon by the district court, such as the car’s registration information, the time of night, and the car driving slowly, did not amount to reasonable suspicion when considered in the totality of the circumstances. The court also noted that Hankins’ testimony that Officer Wheeler said, “you know, three young men, in a nice car, in this neighborhood,” if credited, would undermine the officers’ justification for the stop. The Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on the seizure claim, vacated the summary judgment on the other federal claims, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hankins v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

**Summary:**The case involves the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah (PPAU) challenging Senate Bill 174 (SB 174), a law enacted by the Utah Legislature that prohibits abortion at any stage of pregnancy except in three specific circumstances. PPAU argues that SB 174 violates several rights guaranteed by the Utah Constitution and sought a preliminary injunction to halt the law's enforcement while its constitutionality was litigated. The district court granted the preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing.The State of Utah petitioned for interlocutory review, presenting two primary arguments: that PPAU lacks standing to challenge the law and that the district court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The State argued that PPAU did not have a personal stake in the dispute and that the district court erred in its application of the preliminary injunction standard.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that PPAU has standing to challenge SB 174, satisfying both traditional and third-party standing requirements. The court found that PPAU demonstrated a distinct and palpable injury, including the threat of criminal prosecution and economic harm, which would be redressed by enjoining the law. The court also concluded that PPAU could assert the rights of its patients due to the close relationship between PPAU and its patients and the genuine obstacles patients face in asserting their own rights.The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The court determined that PPAU raised serious issues concerning the constitutionality of SB 174, which should be the subject of further litigation. The district court acted within its discretion in concluding that PPAU would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of harms favored an injunction, and that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. The preliminary injunction remains in place while PPAU litigates its claims. View "Planned Parenthood Association v. State" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 218 (AB 218), which allowed plaintiffs to bring childhood sexual assault claims against public entities within a three-year window, even if those claims were previously barred by statutes of limitations or claim presentation requirements. A.M.M. filed a complaint against the West Contra Costa Unified School District, alleging sexual assaults by a District employee from 1979 to 1983. The District argued that reviving such claims constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds under the California Constitution. The trial court overruled the District’s demurrer, leading the District to seek writ review.The trial court sustained the demurrer for the first three causes of action but overruled it regarding the gift clause argument. The District then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, for a writ of mandate to sustain the demurrer in its entirety. The appellate court issued an order to show cause, and both parties filed responses, including amicus curiae briefs from various entities.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that AB 218’s retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds. The court reasoned that the waiver did not create new substantive liability but merely removed a procedural barrier to existing claims. The court also found that AB 218 served a valid public purpose by providing relief to victims of childhood sexual assault, aligning with the state’s interest in public welfare. Additionally, the court ruled that the District lacked standing to assert due process claims under both the federal and California Constitutions. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Robert Decker, a federal inmate, requested electronic access to the full, daily editions of the Federal Register from his prison law library. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) denied his request, prompting Decker to file a pro se lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act. He claimed that the denial violated his First Amendment rights to receive information and petition the government. The BOP argued that its policy was justified by the need to conserve limited resources.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the BOP. The court applied the framework from Turner v. Safley, concluding that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate penological interest in conserving resources. The district court also denied Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, finding that he was competent to litigate his case despite the challenges of incarceration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, agreeing that the BOP’s policy was reasonably related to its legitimate interest in conserving resources. The court noted that the BOP provided access to documents pertaining to the Bureau and the U.S. Parole Commission and allowed inmates to receive print copies of the Federal Register through the mail. The court found that Decker had alternative means to exercise his First Amendment rights, although they were less convenient. The court also upheld the district court’s denial of Decker’s motions for the recruitment of counsel, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In summary, the Seventh Circuit held that the BOP’s policy of providing limited electronic access to the Federal Register was constitutionally valid under Turner v. Safley and that the district court did not err in denying Decker’s request for appointed counsel. View "Decker v. Sireveld" on Justia Law

Karen Carter filed a lawsuit against DTN Management Company after she slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk at her apartment complex on January 10, 2018. She alleged negligence and breach of statutory duties. Carter filed her complaint on April 13, 2021. DTN Management moved for summary disposition, arguing that the claim was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Administrative Order No. 2020-3, which extended certain filing deadlines during the COVID-19 state of emergency, was within the Michigan Supreme Court's authority. The appellate court found that the order excluded days from the computation of time under MCR 1.108, making Carter's filing timely. DTN Management appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.The Michigan Supreme Court held that Administrative Orders 2020-3 and 2020-18 were constitutional exercises of the Court's authority under Const 1963, art 6, §§ 4 and 5. The Court determined that these orders affected the computation of time rather than tolling the statute of limitations, which is within the Court's power to regulate practice and procedure. The Court concluded that Carter's lawsuit was timely filed, as the days during the state of emergency were not counted in the limitations period. Consequently, the trial court's grant of summary disposition was improper. The Court of Appeals judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded to the Ingham Circuit Court for further proceedings. View "Carter V DTN Management Company" on Justia Law