Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A North Carolina police officer, Clarence Belton, was shot multiple times by fellow officer Heather Loveridge during the execution of a search warrant. The incident, which resulted in serious injuries to Belton and ended his law enforcement career, was captured on video and body camera footage. Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte, alleging excessive force and other claims. During the litigation, both parties moved to seal the video exhibits related to the shooting, and the district court granted these motions, placing the footage under seal.After the district court denied Loveridge’s motion for summary judgment, which was later vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a local television station, WBTV, sought to intervene in the case to unseal the video footage. Belton supported WBTV’s motion, but Loveridge opposed it, arguing that unsealing would jeopardize her right to a fair trial. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied WBTV’s motion to intervene, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal, and also denied the motion to unseal, finding no right of access under the common law or the First Amendment and concluding that Loveridge’s fair trial rights outweighed any public interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene, agreeing that the district court lacked jurisdiction at that stage. However, the appellate court treated WBTV’s appeal regarding the sealing order as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s order sealing the video exhibits violated the First Amendment right of access to judicial records. The court vacated the sealing order and remanded with instructions to unseal the video footage, finding that Loveridge had not met her burden to justify continued sealing. View "Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

A group consisting of a local chapter of a national organization and two individuals challenged certain rules governing public comment at Wilson County Board of Education meetings in Tennessee. The Board’s policies required speakers to disclose their names and addresses, limited comments to certain topics, and included a restriction on “abusive” comments as read by the Chair at meetings. The plaintiffs alleged that these rules deterred them from fully expressing their views, particularly regarding controversial school policies, and that they feared enforcement of the address-disclosure and abusive-comments rules. One plaintiff was stopped from speaking at a meeting for refusing to provide her address.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, seeking to enjoin enforcement of three rules: the public-interest provision, the address-disclosure requirement, and the abusive-comments restriction. After the suit was filed, the Board removed the address-disclosure and abusive-comments rules from its policies and meeting materials. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the public-interest provision, nor a likelihood of imminent and irreparable harm from the other two rules, since they had been rescinded.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the public-interest provision because they had not shown a credible threat of its enforcement. As to the address-disclosure and abusive-comments rules, the court found that, because the Board had rescinded these rules and committed not to reinstate them during the litigation, the plaintiffs could not show a likelihood of imminent and irreparable harm necessary for preliminary injunctive relief. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Moms For Liberty - Wilson County, Tenn. v. Wilson Cnty. Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Philip Myers, a native and citizen of Liberia, was adopted by a U.S. citizen and entered the United States as a child. He later sustained several criminal convictions, including for aggravated felonies. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Myers claimed derivative citizenship through his adoptive mother, who had become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and also alleged that he had been abused by her. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had previously denied his derivative citizenship application, finding insufficient evidence that he was in his adoptive mother’s legal and physical custody at the relevant time. During removal proceedings, Myers, sometimes represented by counsel and sometimes pro se, was found competent to proceed without safeguards. He applied for various forms of relief, including asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but these were denied.The Immigration Judge ordered Myers removed to Liberia. Myers appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the competency determination was flawed and that he should have been found incompetent to proceed pro se. The BIA found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s competency finding and dismissed the appeal. Myers then moved to reopen the proceedings, citing a pending motion with USCIS regarding derivative citizenship, alleged errors in the competency determination, a new asylum claim based on his sexual orientation, and a pending T-visa application as a victim of sex trafficking. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, and Myers was removed to Liberia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and found none. The court also rejected Myers’s constitutional challenge to the statutory requirements for derivative citizenship and found no genuine issue of material fact regarding his nationality claim. The petition for review was denied. View "Myers v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2019, a well-known advice columnist publicly accused a sitting U.S. president of sexually assaulting her in a department store in 1996. The president, while in office, responded with public statements denying the allegations, asserting he did not know the accuser, and claiming she fabricated the story for personal and political gain. The accuser then filed a defamation lawsuit in New York state court, alleging that these statements were false and damaged her reputation. The case was removed to federal court after the Department of Justice certified that the president acted within the scope of his office, but the DOJ later withdrew this certification. During the litigation, the accuser also brought a separate lawsuit under a new state law allowing survivors of sexual assault to sue regardless of the statute of limitations, which resulted in a jury finding that the president had sexually abused and defamed her after leaving office.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial summary judgment for the accuser in the original defamation case, relying on issue preclusion from the verdict in the later case. The trial was limited to damages, and the jury awarded the accuser $83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The president moved for a new trial or remittitur, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to presidential immunity, that the damages were excessive, and that the jury instructions were erroneous. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the president had waived any claim to absolute presidential immunity by failing to timely assert it, and that the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Trump v. United States did not alter this conclusion. The court also found no error in the district court’s application of issue preclusion, evidentiary rulings, or jury instructions, and concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable and not excessive. The judgment in favor of the accuser was affirmed in full. View "Carroll v. Trump" on Justia Law

A religious association that supports abortion as a core tenet challenged Idaho’s laws criminalizing abortion. The organization, which operates a telehealth abortion clinic in New Mexico, alleged that its members in Idaho were harmed by the state’s abortion restrictions. The association claimed that it had members in Idaho who could become involuntarily pregnant and would seek abortions as part of their religious practice, and that it had diverted resources to open its New Mexico clinic in response to Idaho’s and other states’ abortion bans.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the association lacked both associational and organizational standing. The district court determined that the association had not identified any specific member in Idaho who was injured or imminently would be injured by the abortion laws, nor had it shown that its organizational activities were directly impeded by the statutes. The district court also addressed the merits of the association’s constitutional claims and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the grounds of lack of Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit held that the association failed to demonstrate associational standing because it did not identify any member who had suffered or would imminently suffer an injury in Idaho. The court also found no organizational standing, as the association’s diversion of resources to open a clinic in New Mexico and its claim of frustration of mission were insufficient under recent Supreme Court precedent. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of the constitutional claims. The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the complaint could be saved by amendment, noting that dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should generally be without prejudice. View "THE SATANIC TEMPLE V. LABRADOR" on Justia Law

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $16 billion in grants to five nonprofit organizations to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as part of a larger $27 billion congressional appropriation under the Inflation Reduction Act. The grants were structured through agreements between the nonprofits and EPA, with Citibank acting as a financial agent to hold and disburse the funds. After concerns arose regarding conflicts of interest, lack of oversight, and last-minute amendments to the grant agreements, EPA terminated the grants in early 2025. Citibank, following an FBI recommendation, froze the accounts associated with the grants. The nonprofits sued, seeking to prevent the termination and to restore access to the funds.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction, ordering EPA and Citibank to continue funding the grants. The district court found it had jurisdiction, concluding the plaintiffs’ claims were not essentially contractual and thus did not need to be brought in the Court of Federal Claims. The court determined the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional, regulatory, and arbitrary and capricious claims, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ regulatory and arbitrary and capricious claims were essentially contractual, meaning jurisdiction lay exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims, not the district court. The court also held that the constitutional claim was meritless. The equities and public interest, the appellate court concluded, favored the government’s need for oversight and management of public funds. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Climate United Fund v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

After failing to pay property taxes on her home in Maricopa County, Arizona, the plaintiff’s tax liens were sold to a private entity, which later foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff did not respond to the foreclosure action, resulting in a default judgment that extinguished her rights to the property. The property was then deeded to the private purchaser, who transferred it to another private party. The plaintiff subsequently challenged the foreclosure, the retention of surplus equity from the sale, and the constitutionality of the Arizona statute that allowed private parties to enforce tax liens without providing just compensation.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, finding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s injuries stemmed from the state court’s foreclosure judgment, which had already extinguished her property rights, and thus her federal claims amounted to an impermissible appeal of a state court decision. The court also dismissed her state law claims, except for one over which it declined supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the plaintiff’s claims that directly attacked the state court foreclosure judgment, such as those alleging the foreclosure was an unconstitutional taking or excessive fine. However, the court held that claims challenging the defendants’ post-judgment retention of surplus equity were not barred, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, which recognized a property owner’s right to excess equity after a tax foreclosure. The court also found that the plaintiff’s facial challenge to the statute was not barred by Rooker-Feldman but was moot due to legislative amendments. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving claims. View "SEARLE V. ALLEN" on Justia Law

In 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint against a public school district, alleging that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a teacher while attending middle and high school. The complaint asserted that the teacher’s abusive conduct was widely known within the school and that the district either knew or should have known about the abuse but failed to act, allowing the teacher to remain employed. The plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, relying on statutory provisions that exempt certain childhood sexual assault claims from the usual requirement to present a claim to the public entity before filing suit.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case after the school district moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district argued that the plaintiff’s claims were only possible due to Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218), which retroactively eliminated the claims presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against public entities. The district contended that AB 218 violated the gift clause of the California Constitution by imposing liability for past acts where no enforceable claim previously existed. The trial court agreed, finding that AB 218 retroactively created liability and constituted an unconstitutional gift of public funds, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the trial court’s decision de novo. The appellate court held that AB 218 does not violate the gift clause because it did not create new substantive liability; rather, it removed a procedural barrier to enforcing pre-existing liability for negligence and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with directions to deny the school district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "O.B. v. L.A. Unified School Dist." on Justia Law

Jeffery Krueger died following a traffic stop in Oklahoma initiated by Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office deputies. The stop began when deputies suspected Mr. Krueger of minor traffic violations and possible intoxication. After Mr. Krueger stopped his car in a turn lane, deputies forcibly removed him from his vehicle, allegedly pulling him by his hair, slamming his head on the pavement, and repeatedly using tasers as they attempted to handcuff him. Additional law enforcement officers arrived and, according to the plaintiffs, either participated directly or failed to intervene as Mr. Krueger, now handcuffed and prone, was further restrained with leg shackles and a hobble tie. Mr. Krueger stopped breathing at the scene and was later pronounced dead at a hospital.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma reviewed the case after the plaintiffs, Mr. Krueger’s parents and estate representatives, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to intervene in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants, including deputies and police officers, moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment for most defendants, finding that, when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there were sufficient grounds to show clearly established constitutional violations. The court found material disputes regarding the amount and duration of force used, including the number of taser applications and the nature of the prone restraint.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The Tenth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find the defendants used excessive force both in the initial removal and restraint of Mr. Krueger and in the prolonged prone restraint after he was subdued. The court also held that the failure to intervene in the use of excessive force was clearly established as a constitutional violation. The district court’s orders denying summary judgment were affirmed. View "Krueger v. Phillips" on Justia Law

A tenured English professor at a public university objected to the administration’s decision to resume in-person instruction during the Covid-19 pandemic. The professor, who had health concerns and was partially vaccinated, communicated his opposition by emailing students about his forced return to the classroom, attaching correspondence with his department chair, and using an unconventional email signature. The university responded by reassigning his courses, placing him on paid leave, and proposing a five-day suspension without pay, along with requirements for improved email professionalism. The professor then filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his First Amendment and procedural due process rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the complaint. The court found that the professor’s email did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, as it was gratuitous information in a logistical message sent in his professional capacity. The court also rejected the procedural due process claim for failure to exhaust state-law remedies. The court’s dismissal order allowed the professor until July 3 to amend his complaint, instructing the clerk to enter judgment if no amendment was filed. The professor did not amend, and the clerk did not immediately enter judgment. On July 14, the court issued another order directing entry of judgment, which the clerk entered that day. The professor filed his notice of appeal on August 10.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed whether the appeal was timely. Applying its precedent from Schuurman v. Motor Vessel Betty K V, the court held that the thirty-day appeal period began on the last day set for amending the complaint, not the later date when judgment was entered. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the amendment deadline, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Burt v. President of University of Florida" on Justia Law