Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

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

The plaintiff, a former police officer in Dermott, Arkansas, alleged that he was forced to resign in retaliation for reporting a fellow officer’s excessive use of force. The incident in question involved the other officer grabbing an arrestee by the neck while the arrestee was restrained. Subsequently, the officer accused the plaintiff of taking money from a parolee, which the parolee confirmed in a statement. The police chief referred the matter to a prosecutor, who initiated a state police investigation. During this period, the plaintiff’s employment status became unclear, with conflicting statements about whether he was fired or resigned. The plaintiff ultimately resigned after a job offer from another police department was rescinded due to the ongoing investigation. He was later charged with abuse of office and witness bribery, but the charges were dismissed when the parolee could not be located.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. The court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily resigned and had not suffered an adverse employment action, which was necessary for his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for his malicious prosecution claim, as a summons to appear in court did not constitute a seizure. The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and found that they failed on the merits, including claims under the Arkansas Whistle Blower Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s voluntary resignation did not amount to an adverse employment action, and that he was not seized under the Fourth Amendment. The court also agreed that the state law claims failed as a matter of law. View "Brown v. City of Dermott Arkansas" on Justia Law

A student organization at West Texas A&M University, focused on supporting LGBT+ students, planned a charity drag show to raise funds for a suicide prevention initiative. The event was to be held in a university venue that had previously hosted a wide range of student and community events, including a prior drag show. The organizers took steps to ensure the show would be appropriate for a general audience, restricting lewd content and requiring minors to be accompanied by adults. Shortly before the event, the university president canceled the show, citing concerns that drag performances were discriminatory against women and did not align with the university’s values.Following the cancellation, the student group and two of its officers filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking a preliminary injunction to allow future drag shows on campus. The district court denied the injunction, holding that drag shows were not inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment and that the university president was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the plaintiffs had standing against certain university officials but not others, and rejected the claim of irreparable harm.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the planned drag show was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, as it conveyed a clear message of support for the LGBT+ community in its context. The court determined that the university venue was a designated public forum, making the content-based restriction on the drag show subject to strict scrutiny, which the university did not attempt to justify. The court found the plaintiffs faced irreparable harm from the ongoing ban and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the university president and a vice president, affirmed the denial as to the chancellor for lack of standing, and remanded for entry of the injunction. View "Spectrum WT v. Wendler" on Justia Law

William Cannon was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and dissuading a witness, after attacking a 16-year-old girl and confessing to other attempted sexual assaults. Near the end of his prison sentence, the district attorney petitioned to commit him under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), which allows for the civil commitment of certain sex offenders after their sentences if they are found to be sexually violent predators. During pretrial proceedings, Cannon’s attorney, without Cannon’s personal attendance or express waiver, waived his right to a jury trial. The trial court did not advise Cannon of his jury trial rights or seek his personal waiver, as the SVPA does not require these steps. Following a bench trial, Cannon was found to be a sexually violent predator and was committed.On appeal, Cannon argued for the first time that the SVPA’s procedures violated his state and federal equal protection rights because, unlike other civil commitment schemes for individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) or those with mental health disorders (OMHD), the SVPA does not require a judicial advisement of the right to a jury trial or a personal waiver from the defendant. The Court of Appeal considered the equal protection claim despite it not being raised below, found that rational basis review was the appropriate standard, and remanded the case to the trial court to allow the parties to develop a fuller record and litigate the equal protection issue.The Supreme Court of California reviewed the case to determine the appropriate standard of scrutiny for Cannon’s equal protection challenge. The court held that rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, applies to the SVPA’s jury trial demand and waiver procedures. The court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s remand order, directing the trial court to determine whether the legislative choice of procedures is constitutionally justified under rational basis review and whether Cannon knowingly waived his right to a jury trial. The order of commitment is conditionally affirmed pending the outcome of those proceedings. View "P. v. Cannon" on Justia Law

Wil and Deborah Hansen, acting as grandparents and legal guardians of their grandchild J.L., paid tuition for J.L. to attend full-day kindergarten in Boise School District No. 1 during the 2017–2018 school year. The Hansens paid $2,250 for the second half of the kindergarten day, which they alleged violated the Idaho Constitution’s guarantee of free public education and constituted a taking of property without due process. In 2023, they filed a proposed class action seeking reimbursement and a declaration that the School District’s tuition policy was unconstitutional. The Hansens attempted to assert claims both in their own right and on behalf of J.L., arguing that J.L. was entitled to statutory tolling for minors under Idaho law.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, dismissed the Hansens’ federal takings and state inverse condemnation claims as time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation. The court found that only the Hansens, not J.L., had standing to pursue the claims, and that the two-year and four-year statutes of limitation for the federal and state claims, respectively, had expired. The court denied the Hansens’ motion for reconsideration, and the Hansens appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that J.L. lacked standing to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim because he did not personally pay the tuition or suffer a deprivation of property, and there was no allegation that he was denied educational opportunities. The Court further held that the Hansens’ Fifth Amendment claim was time-barred under Idaho’s two-year statute of limitation for such claims, and the minority tolling statute did not apply. The School District was awarded costs on appeal. View "Hansen v. Boise School Dist #1" on Justia Law

Anthony Schmitt, a Christian volunteer, taught a program called “The Quest for Authentic Manhood” at the Minnesota Correctional Facility from 2012 until 2020, when all religious programming was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Quest program, which is based on biblical teachings about manhood, was popular among inmates and had been offered voluntarily. In 2023, after religious programming resumed, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MDOC) decided to discontinue Quest, citing concerns that its content conflicted with the department’s diversity, equity, and inclusivity values. The MDOC specifically objected to the program’s biblical perspective on masculinity, its treatment of sexual orientation, and its portrayal of gender roles.Schmitt filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the MDOC’s decision violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, and constituted a denominational preference in violation of the Establishment Clause. He sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate the Quest program. The district court denied the motion, applying the standard from Turner v. Safley, and found that the MDOC’s decision was rationally related to legitimate penological interests, was neutral, and did not violate Schmitt’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of the preliminary injunction. The court held that, even assuming the Turner standard applied, the MDOC’s action was not neutral because it targeted Schmitt’s religious viewpoint. The court found that Schmitt was likely to succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claims and that the other factors for a preliminary injunction also favored him. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to reinstate the Quest program pending further proceedings. View "Schmitt v. Rebertus" on Justia Law

A mobilehome park owner challenged the constitutionality of a California statute that limits annual rent increases for certain mobilehome parks located within the jurisdictions of two or more incorporated cities. The owner argued that the statute is facially unconstitutional because it lacks a procedural mechanism allowing property owners to seek rent increases above the statutory cap to ensure a fair return, which the owner claimed is required by the California and U.S. Constitutions. The owner asserted that the absence of such a mechanism results in a violation of due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against uncompensated takings.The Superior Court of Orange County granted the owner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the statute’s failure to provide a process for seeking exceptions to the rent cap violated due process and rendered the statute unconstitutional. The court rejected the owner’s takings argument but concluded that the legal issue was dispositive and denied the State’s request for leave to amend its answer. Judgment was entered in favor of the owner, and the State appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the owner failed to establish that the statute is facially unconstitutional, as the relevant legal precedents do not require a fair return adjustment mechanism in every rent control law. The court also found that the State’s general denial in its answer placed the owner’s standing at issue, precluding judgment on the pleadings. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the absence of a fair return adjustment mechanism does not, by itself, render the statute facially unconstitutional, and that the State’s answer raised material issues that should have prevented judgment on the pleadings. View "Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State" on Justia Law

After Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment in November 2024 protecting the right to make decisions about reproductive healthcare, Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County. The organization sought a declaration that various state abortion laws and regulations were unconstitutional under the new amendment and requested a preliminary injunction to prevent their enforcement while the case was pending. The circuit court initially granted a preliminary injunction enjoining several abortion-related statutes and regulations, and later expanded the injunction to include additional licensing requirements after a motion for reconsideration.The State of Missouri challenged the preliminary injunction, arguing that the circuit court applied the wrong legal standard. The Supreme Court of Missouri issued a peremptory writ directing the circuit court to vacate its orders and reconsider the injunction under a more rigorous standard, requiring a threshold finding that the party seeking the injunction is likely to prevail on the merits. The circuit court complied, reevaluated the request, and again issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the same statutes and regulations. The State then appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Missouri, raising multiple points of error and seeking a stay and expedited review.The Supreme Court of Missouri determined that it lacked exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the appeal because the circuit court had not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged statutes. The Court explained that its exclusive jurisdiction is only invoked when a claim that a statute is unconstitutional has been properly raised, preserved, and ruled upon in the lower court. Since the appeal concerned only the issuance of a preliminary injunction and not a final determination on the statutes’ validity, the Supreme Court of Missouri transferred the case to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, for further proceedings. View "Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State" on Justia Law

A religious association that supports abortion as part of its core beliefs challenged Idaho’s laws criminalizing abortion. The association, which operates a telehealth abortion clinic in New Mexico, claimed to have members in Idaho who would be affected by the abortion bans. However, it did not have any patients in Idaho, no clinic or doctors licensed to practice in Idaho, and could not identify any Idaho citizen who had sought or would imminently seek an abortion through the organization. The association argued that Idaho’s laws harmed its members and frustrated its mission, and that it had diverted resources to open its New Mexico clinic in response to abortion bans in Idaho and other states.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 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 appellate court held that the association failed to show associational standing because it did not identify any specific member who had suffered or would imminently suffer an injury due to Idaho’s abortion laws. The court also found no organizational standing, as the association’s diversion of resources and alleged frustration of its mission were insufficient to establish standing 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 dismissals for lack of jurisdiction should generally be without prejudice. View "THE SATANIC TEMPLE V. LABRADOR" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged the tax assessment of its facility in Salisbury, Vermont, for the 2023-2024 tax year. After a grievance hearing attended by both the property owner and its attorney, the town listers denied the grievance and mailed the decision by certified mail to the property owner’s address of record. The property owner received the notice twelve days before the deadline to appeal but did not forward it to its attorney until after the appeal period had expired. The attorney then filed an appeal to the Board of Civil Authority (BCA), which was rejected as untimely.The property owner appealed to the Vermont Superior Court, Addison Unit, Civil Division, arguing that the town violated its procedural due process rights by failing to send notice of the listers’ decision to both the property owner and its attorney. The Superior Court allowed the property owner to amend its complaint and ultimately granted summary judgment in its favor, relying on Perry v. Department of Employment & Training, which required notice to both a claimant and their attorney in the context of unemployment benefits. The court ordered the BCA to hear the untimely appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that, in the context of property tax grievances, procedural due process does not require notice to be mailed to both the taxpayer and the taxpayer’s counsel. The Court distinguished Perry as limited to unemployment-benefit proceedings and found that the statutory scheme for property tax appeals only requires notice to the taxpayer. Because the property owner received actual notice and had sufficient time to appeal, the Court concluded that due process was satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision and instructed that summary judgment be entered for the Town of Salisbury. View "Salisbury AD 1, LLC v. Town of Salisbury" on Justia Law