Correspondent
Federal courthouse correspondent, covers civil rights, employment discrimination, housing rights, and Second Amendment disputes.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for officers who fired at a fleeing vehicle after it began moving away from the scene. The court held that under clearly established law, no reasonable officer could believe such shots were justified once the suspect vehicle accelerated.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a § 1983 complaint filed by Kimberly Monique Ross, ruling that the appeal was frivolous because it sought to relitigate claims already decided. The court denied Ross's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because she failed to challenge the district court's finding that her lawsuit was duplicative of a prior action.
The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review seeking to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove prejudice because he could not demonstrate he was eligible for a statutory waiver of inadmissibility.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Robert Prosper's civil rights claims, ruling that his complaint failed to state a plausible claim against the named officer or the municipalities. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the case because the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to establish municipal liability or a special relationship required for a due process claim.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a pro se employment action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court found no reversible error in the lower court's decision to dismiss the complaint without granting leave to amend.
The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se complaint alleging violations of federal consumer protection laws, ruling that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The court also held that the criminal statutes cited by the appellant provided no private right of action for civil relief.
The Third Circuit denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, declining to intervene in a civil action alleging civil rights violations and domestic violence. The court found no abuse of discretion in the District Court's denial of a recusal motion and its dismissal of the underlying complaint.
The Third Circuit held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing because her alleged conduct did not result in a sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact. The court vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to state court.
The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for high-level prison officials, holding that their reliance on incompetent medical contractors did not constitute a clearly established Eighth Amendment violation. While the court affirmed that the officials were not the proximate cause of the injuries under state law, it remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to pursue their state-law negligence claims.
The Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for high-level prison officials who relied on contracted medical providers to treat a scabies outbreak. The court held that officials are not liable for the incompetence of contractors unless their own actions were so unreasonable as to violate clearly established law.
