Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

On July 9, 2020, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), determining that Congress never disestablished the Creek Reservation in eastern Oklahoma and, therefore, it was "Indian country" for purposes of the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1153. Under the Major Crimes Act, "[o]nly the federal government, not the State, may prosecute Indians for major crimes committed in Indian country." Relying on McGirt, Plaintiffs-appellants Jason Nicholson, Justin Hooper, Cael Burgess, and Derek Hair filed the underlying civil suit seeking to recover fines and fees they were ordered to pay as a result of allegedly unlawful prosecutions by the State and certain municipalities. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the trial court properly dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for money had and received. Plaintiffs' claims required a determination that their state and municipal court criminal convictions and sentences were invalid. “Challenges to criminal jurisdiction are governed by the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. … Plaintiffs' convictions and sentences cannot be invalidated by the trial court in this civil action for money had and received. As a result, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” View "Nicholson v. Stitt" on Justia Law

Defendant was found incompetent to stand trial for the criminal charges against him. Defendant filed seventeen pro se motions seeking either release, a competency evaluation, or an order compelling his counsel to file a Sec. 4247(h) motion for a hearing to determine discharge. The court addressed whether the court had jurisdiction over Defendant’s direct appeal from a magistrate judge’s order. The parties argue the magistrate judge’s order was a “final order” authorized by the district court’s order of reference and Western District of Missouri Local Rule 72.1(c).The court reasoned that it has jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts of the United States”, thus without a “decision of a district court” it lacks jurisdiction to proceed any further. Defendant argues the parties implicitly consented to have the magistrate judge decide the motions at hand. But the parties’ consent does not save the appeal. Parties may consent to have a magistrate judge conduct any civil proceeding when the magistrate judge is “specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court”. Here, the district court did not specially designate the magistrate judge to exercise such jurisdiction. Thus, the court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Timothy O'Laughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the City of Beachwood to terminate special prosecutor Stephanie Scalise, holding that this case was moot.Burkons was charged with one count of interfering with civil rights. City Prosecutor Nathalie Supler moved for leave to withdraw as counsel due to a conflict of interest because Burkons was a city council member. Supler asked the trial court to appoint Scalise as special prosecutor in this case. The municipal court judge granted the motion. Burkons eventually filed a complaint in mandamus against the City challenging Scalise's "unauthorized representation of the City." The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action. The days earlier, a writ of prohibition was issued halting the criminal case against Burkons based on improper venue. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Appellant's mandamus complaint, holding that this action was moot. View "State ex rel. Burkons v. Beachwood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of Judge Mark Derrick challenging the constitutionality and legality of various practices concerning bond, the appointment of counsel, and the imposition and payment of fines, holding that there was no error.Appellants, who appeared before Judge Derrick, a state district court judge, as criminal defendants, were subject to court-imposed fines that they failed to pay, often resulting in jail time and additional fines. Appellants sued Judge Derrick in his official capacity, raising several challenges. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Judge Derrick on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that judicial immunity prevented this Court from granting Appellants their requested relief. View "Mahoney v. Derrick" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Alabama Supreme Court's review was one of first impression. Yamil Alexsander Hare and Jose Sosa filed a state-court action to recover personal property that a Gulf Shores police officer seized without a warrant under state law and then transferred to two Baldwin County Sheriff's Office ("BCSO") deputies, acting in their capacity as federally deputized agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration ("the DEA"). The circuit court ruled that it lacked in rem jurisdiction based on the Court of Civil Appeals' caselaw. The Supreme Court held that, under 21 U.S.C. 881(c), exclusive federal jurisdiction attached when the deputized DEA agents took possession of the property and no state court had prior in rem jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court. View "Hare v. Mack" on Justia Law

Smith, a software engineer, obtained the coordinates of artificial fishing reefs in the Gulf of Mexico from a website owned by StrikeLines, a Florida business. Smith remained in Mobile, Alabama while posting information about the reef coordinates on Facebook. Smith initially agreed to remove the posts and to assist Strikelines with its security issues in exchange for additional coordinates but communications broke down. StrikeLines contacted law enforcement. Officers executed a search warrant and found StrikeLines’s coordinates and other customer and sales data on Smith’s devices. Smith was charged in the Northern District of Florida with violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C), (c)(2)(B)(iii), theft of trade secrets, and transmitting a threat through interstate commerce with intent to extort. Smith argued that venue was improper because all the prohibited conduct occurred in the Alabama and the data that was accessed and obtained was in the Middle District of Florida.Smith was convicted on the trade secrets and extortion counts in the Northern District of Florida. The Eleventh Circuit vacated Smith’s trade secrets conviction and related sentencing enhancements for lack of venue, affirmed the extortion conviction and related sentencing enhancements, and remanded. Smith never committed any essential conduct for the trade secrets conviction in the Northern District of Florida. Sufficient evidence supported the extortion conviction. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

Cesar was shot and killed in 2016. Murder charges were filed against Santacruz, Cervantes, Alcantar, and Duran. Vallejo (Duran’s mother) was charged as an accessory after the fact. Judge Colin dismissed that charge against Vallejo in the interest of justice under Penal Code 1385 on February 20, 2020. Judge Colin later recused himself at the request of the prosecution. The case was assigned to Judge Clark, who found Judge Colin’s recusal to have been a concession to retroactive disqualification, and on June 22, 2020, granted the prosecution’s motion to set aside as void all rulings of Judge Colin dating back to January 9, including the February 20 dismissal, thereby reinstating the accessory count against Vallejo.The court of appeal vacated Judge Clark’s ruling, noting that whether the February 20 dismissal was an appropriate exercise of discretion was not before the court. Judge Colin’s order dismissing the charge against Vallejo was a final order terminating the trial court’s authority over her case. The prosecution had a clear remedy to address the trial court’s alleged bias or appearance of bias underlying the dismissal—an appeal under Penal Code 1238,(a)(8), but elected not to appeal. Judge Clark was without jurisdiction to set aside the dismissal. View "Vallejo v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

McCall, who pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge involving heroin possession and distribution in 2015 and was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment, moved for compassionate release. He cited as“extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warranting his release: the COVID-19 pandemic, his rehabilitation efforts, and the Sixth Circuit’s 2019 decision, “Havis” that “attempted” controlled substance offenses do not qualify as predicate offenses for the purpose of the Sentencing Guidelines’ career-offender enhancement and a subsequent holding applying the decision to convictions for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. He argued that his prior convictions for drug trafficking and assault no longer qualify as predicate offenses for career-offender status, that he has rehabilitated himself, and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors favored granting compassionate release. The government argued that McCall raised “generalized fears of contracting COVID-19, without more,” that post-sentence legal developments are not extraordinary, and that McCall poses a danger to the community.The district court denied McCall’s motion in a form order. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The district court suggested that it thought itself unable to rely on nonretroactive changes in sentencing law and abused its discretion by not considering the disparity in McCall’s sentence post-Havis along with his efforts at rehabilitation and the presence of COVID-19. View "United States v. McCall" on Justia Law

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) asked the Southern District of Indiana to oversee a multidistrict litigation docket to coordinate discovery and other pretrial proceedings in thousands of medical product-liability suits, alleging that Cook’s inferior vena cava (IVC) filters were defective. The court and the parties agreed to a procedure by which new plaintiffs could join the MDL by filing directly in the Southern District of Indiana rather than filing in their home districts and waiting for the judiciary’s administrative machinery to transfer their cases to the MDL in Indiana. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuits directly in the Indiana MDL rather than filing in the states where they lived and had their IVC filters implanted.Cook moved to dismiss both cases based on Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The plaintiffs’ home states (South Carolina and Mississippi) have three-year statutes. The Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suits. The unique facts of this case indicate that Cook implicitly consented to using choice-of-law rules for these plaintiffs as if they had filed in their home states. It was not fair to allow Cook to change positions retroactively to dismiss these plaintiffs’ cases that had been timely filed under the “law of the case.” View "Looper v. Cook Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals reviewing an appeal from an interlocutory order in a civil action denying immunity under Kentucky's "Stand Your Ground" law, Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.085, holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.Defendant was indicted on charges of murder and first-degree assault. Defendant moved the trial court to find him immune from prosecution under section 503.085. The circuit court granted Defendant's motion for immunity and ordered that the indictments against him be dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Defendant filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in a civil case stemming from the same incident leading to the criminal charges, arguing that collateral estoppel and section 503.085(1) required that he be immune from civil action. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that collateral estoppel applied. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion below, holding that the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. View "Childers v. Albright" on Justia Law