Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Mitchell, physically a man, psychologically a woman, sought to compel her probation officers to alter conditions of her probation, by allowing her to reside with her family rather than in the men’s homeless shelter, allowing her to dress as a woman, and referring her to treatment programs for her gender dysphoria. The district court denied a preliminary injunction on grounds that she hadn’t complied with rules governing injunctive relief, that the requested injunctive relief was unrelated to the merits of her claims against prison doctors (the only claims that had survived screening of her complaint), and that she had failed to demonstrate either that she was likely to prevail on the underlying claims or would suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief was denied. While the appeal was pending, Mitchell was returned to custody, after pleading guilty to theft, prostitution, and resisting an officer. The Seventh Circuit dismissed her appeal of denial of an injunction as moot. Mitchell still has claims pending against the doctors, unaffected by the denial of the preliminary injunction, and should she be released from jail during the litigation and again placed on probation she can renew her objections to the terms of her probation. View "Mitchell v. Wall" on Justia Law

Plaintiff John Farrelly appealed a superior court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Concord police officers Walter Carroll and Eric Pichler and the City of Concord (city), on grounds that defendants were entitled to official and vicarious immunity. Plaintiff was charged with harassing his ex-girlfriend. Carroll and Pichler drafted the criminal complaint against the plaintiff. Ultimately, the charges against plaintiff were dropped. Plaintiff brought claims against the defendants for: (1) malicious prosecution (count I); (2) false imprisonment (count II); (3) violation of his rights of free speech and against unreasonable searches and seizures under the New Hampshire Constitution (count III); and (4) negligence (count IV). The court rejected the defendants’ arguments based upon RSA 594:13 and RSA 594:10, and found that the warrantless arrest was unlawful. However, the court ruled that the defendants were immune from suit. The court granted summary judgment to the city on count IV (negligence) because it concluded that the exception to municipal immunity found in RSA 507-B:2 (2010) does not apply, as the claim asserted therein has no nexus to cars or premises. This case presented a question of whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision in "Everitt v. Gen. Elec. Co.," (156 N.H. 202 (2007)) applied to intentional torts. The Court concluded that it did, and that the language set forth in "Huckins v. McSweeney," (166 N.H. 176 (2014)) had to be interpreted consistently with the standard articulated in Everitt. Although the Court found this to be a close case, the Court ultimately concluded that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendants, and accordingly, affirmed. View "Farrelly v. City of Concord" on Justia Law

In 2012, Rayland Brown was charged by indictment with the felony crime of forcible sexual penetration by use of a foreign object. On the second day of Brown’s jury trial, he and the State agreed to a written plea agreement. One of the provisions of the plea agreement was that the charge would be amended to felony domestic battery. On the same date, the State filed an information charging the crime of felony domestic battery, and Brown pled guilty to that charge. The district court sentenced Brown, and in accordance with the plea agreement the court retained jurisdiction for 365 days. A year later, the court entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction, which resulted in Brown being required to serve a prison sentence of at least fifteen years and up to twenty years, with credit for 483 days already served. Brown filed a motion for reconsideration, and the court reduced the mandatory portion of the prison sentence from fifteen years to eleven years. Brown then filed this civil action seeking post-conviction relief on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal case. The district court interpreted the alleged ineffective assistance as being that his counsel advised him that he would receive probation after the period of retained jurisdiction and failed to object to the court’s alleged deviation from the plea agreement. The district court dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief because the court in the underlying case did not deviate from the plea agreement and the plea agreement, which Brown signed, notified him that he may not receive probation because it expressly provided that “[a]t the end of the period of retained jurisdiction, the court would be free to exercise or relinquish jurisdiction in its discretion.” Brown then appealed, challenging whether the court in his criminal case had subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded Brown could not raise that issue for the first time on appeal in this civil action, and affirmed the judgment in this case. View "Brown v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that defense counsel was ineffective on seven separate grounds. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to assert that but for any alleged ineffectiveness on the part of counsel he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

Christopher Williamson appealed a district court order affirming the Department of Transportation hearing officer's decision to suspend his driving privileges for two years. Officer Travis Martinson stopped Williamson after he drove over a fire hose at a fire scene. Martinson smelled alcohol in Williamson's vehicle and noticed Williamson had bloodshot, watery eyes and slurred speech. Williamson refused field sobriety tests but consented to perform an onsite screening test. The onsite test estimated Williamson's blood alcohol content was greater than permitted for operating a vehicle and Martinson arrested Williamson. Martinson took Williamson to the Williams County Correctional Center and Sergeant Randy Haugenoe administered an Intoxilyzer 8000 chemical test. The Intoxilyzer reported Williamson had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.231 percent by weight. A hearing officer introduced the Intoxilyzer report at an administrative hearing. Williamson objected, alleging the statutory requirements were not met and the report was inadmissible for lack of foundation. The hearing officer concluded the test was fairly administered, the objection was overruled and the hearing officer's suspension of Williamson's driving privileges for two years was not in error. The district court affirmed the decision. Williamson appealed, arguing the district court erred by receiving evidence that was not adequately authenticated. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Williamson v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse that resulted in the death of an infant in her care. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years to life. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that evidence of the infant’s prior injuries while in her care should have been excluded as prior bad acts under Neb. R. Evid. 404. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial on the basis of allowing the admission of the prior injuries, as the prior injuries were inextricably intertwined with the charged crime; (2) there was no misconduct by the prosecutor during closing argument; (3) Defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Cullen" on Justia Law

In 2003, Foy was charged in Pennsylvania with threatening a federal official, 18 U.S.C. 115(a)(1)(B). The government also sought revocation of probation imposed by a Texas district court. The Pennsylvania court found that Foy was incapable of assisting in his defense and committed him for 120 days (18 U.S.C. 4241(d)). In 2005, the court found that Foy continued to be incompetent and that there was no substantial probability that he would attain competency in the foreseeable future. The government successfully moved to dismiss the criminal complaint. Three years later the Pennsylvania court terminated Foy’s Texas probation. The warden at the Missouri Federal Medical Center certified that Foy was suffering from a mental disease or defect so that his release would pose a substantial risk and that suitable arrangements for state custody were not available. A Missouri district court ordered Foy committed under section 4246(d). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Annual reports have recommended Foy’s conditional release. Rather than accept a conditional release, Foy sought unconditional release by instituting proceedings in both district courts.The Pennsylvania court denied his FRCP 60(d)(3) motion and declined to vacate the order of civil commitment. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that the Pennsylvania court lacked jurisdiction because Foy’s commitment is currently pursuant to a Missouri order. View "United States v. Foy" on Justia Law

After serving a term in an Illinois state prison for a sex crime, the plaintiff was committed to a Treatment and Detention Facility, pursuant to the civil Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. He had a job in the Facility’s dietary services department. He alleged, in his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that he was fired in retaliation for previous lawsuits against staff members. He claims disciplinary charges against him were “trumped-up.” The district judge conducted screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and dismissed the suit with prejudice because it “contained only conclusory allegations. … Plaintiff simply stated he had filed previous lawsuits and assumed people knew about it.” The judge had interviewed the plaintiff by telephone. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that it previously rejected ex parte telephonic interrogation as a method of screening complaints to determine whether they state a claim. It is permissible for the judge to interview a pro se detainee plaintiff to determine, not whether the plaintiff’s case is meritorious, but simply what that case is; the judge must ensure that a transcript or recording of the interview be made to allow appellate review. View "Henderson v. Wilcoxen" on Justia Law

Before 2003 Doe pled guilty to two simple assaults in Pennsylvania. In 2003, he pled guilty in federal court to distribution and possession with intent to distribute at least five grams of crack cocaine. His sentence as a career offender occurred under precedent categorically designating his prior convictions as crimes of violence. He did not appeal his 262-month sentence. In 2004 the government moved to reduce Doe’s sentence for “substantial assistance” in a different criminal investigation. While that Rule 35 motion was pending, Doe filed a section 2255 motion arguing that his assault convictions were not crimes of violence. The 2008 Supreme Court decision, Begay, held that a DUI conviction is not a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because it does not involve “purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct.” The career-offender Sentencing Guideline was similar to the ACCA. In 2009, the district court granted Doe Rule 35 relief; counsel withdrew the 2255 motion. The Third Circuit then held that courts must inquire into the part of the statute to which the defendant actually pled guilty to determine whether the career-offender enhancement applies. In 2012 Doe filed a section 2255 motion, again raising his Begay argument. The statute of limitations on Doe’s Begay argument expired in 2009, when he withdrew his 2008 motion. The court concluded that there was no basis to toll the limitations period because Doe’s 2008 counsel was not deficient. The Third Circuit remanded. The court noted that while Doe has been released from prison, his case is not moot; proceeded under an assumption that the 2255 motion was not a second or successive motion over which the district court lacked jurisdiction; held that Doe had not procedurally defaulted his claim; and held that claims of Begay error are cognizable on collateral review. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

Ohio state inmate Jackson continually violated the terms of his parole. Facing up to 26 years behind bars, he filed an unsuccessful federal habeas petition in 2013. Jackson filed two more habeas petitions in 2015, but the district court classified them as second or successive and transferred them to the Sixth Circuit. Jackson filed unsuccessful “motion[s] for relief from” the judgments asking the district court to reconsider the transfer orders. The Sixth Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss, noting that Jackson appealed the denial of his motion for relief from the transfer order, not the transfer order itself. .When a district court transfers a second-or-successive habeas petition, the case travels from one court to another, so that the transferring court loses jurisdiction and the other court gains The district court lost jurisdiction over Jackson’s habeas petitions when each petition was physically transferred to the Sixth Circuit, so it lacked jurisdiction to consider Jackson’s motions. View "Jackson v. Sloan" on Justia Law