Correspondent
Federal courthouse correspondent, covers civil rights, employment discrimination, housing rights, and Second Amendment disputes.
The Federal Circuit dismissed a petition for a writ of mandamus because the underlying employment discrimination case does not fall within its limited statutory jurisdiction. The court ordered the immediate transfer of the petition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which has proper appellate authority over the Northern District of Georgia.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a wage-and-hour judgment against Jack in the Box, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the willfulness of Workers' Benefit Fund overdeductions. The panel also ruled that the employer must pay for the full duration of shortened meal breaks under Oregon law and remanded the shoe deduction claims for a jury to determine if the deductions ultimately benefited employees.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remands this civil rights case to the district court following an en banc decision. The court's ruling reverses a prior grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity grounds.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal in part as moot and affirmed the dismissal of federal civil rights claims against state court officials and legal aid attorneys. The court held that the legal aid defendants were not state actors and that the judicial defendants were immune from injunctive relief under Section nineteen eighty-three.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of David Manuel Garcia for engaging in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place. The court held that Garcia failed to demonstrate plain error in challenging the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of summary judgment, holding that a deputy's brief push and pull of a mother at a school constituted de minimis force insufficient to violate the Fourth Amendment. Because the force used was nominal, the deputy is entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiffs' federal and state law claims must be dismissed.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a federal inmate's Bivens action alleging inadequate medical care and excessive force, holding that no implied private right of action exists for these claims against federal prison officials. The court ruled that the plaintiff's allegations presented a new context distinct from Supreme Court precedent and that special factors counseled against extending Bivens remedies in this domain.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, ruling that an officer's opening of a driver's door was reasonable to ensure safety and facilitate communication. Even assuming the door opening was unlawful, the court held that probable cause for a vehicle search was independently established by a second officer detecting marijuana odor.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to intervene in a class action against Google, ruling the request was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The court held that intervening three months before a settlement approval hearing would likely void the agreement and prejudice the existing parties.
The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity because the case turned on genuine disputes over material facts. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to resolve factual contests at the summary judgment stage, even when video evidence exists.
