Mar 31 2026
United States Court… 25-5385 Panel Decision

Smither v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development, et al.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's claims challenging actions by judges of another federal district. The court held that federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal judges and that the complaint failed to state a claim due to redundancy and insufficient factual allegations.

Mar 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-50616 Per Curiam

Mortel v. Nowicki

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Donna Mortel's housing dispute, ruling that her attempt to serve defendants via email failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. The court further held that the district court acted within its discretion to dismiss the case for Mortel's failure to attend a court-ordered status conference.

Mar 16 2026
9th Cir. 2:23-cv-02676-DAD-CSK Unpublished

STEVEN RAY COLLINS; SHARON LAVETTE COLLINS v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Collinses' Fair Housing Act claims, ruling that the lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court held that the prior state court judgment on the merits precluded this subsequent action between the same parties involving the same cause of action.

Mar 5 2026
3rd Cir. 2:22-CV-02760 Panel Decision

MEMPHIS STREET ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL AT J.P. JONES v. PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a charter school's challenge to its closure, ruling that the school district's enforcement of a surrender clause was not motivated by racial discrimination. The court held that the district acted within its contractual and statutory authority to revoke the charter based on the school's failure to meet agreed-upon academic benchmarks.

Feb 27 2026
3rd Cir. 25-2480 Panel Decision

Faycal Manz v. Walmart Supercenter, Secaucus #3520

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's claim that a store's Wi-Fi policy discriminated against international visitors based on national origin. The court held that the complaint failed to plausibly allege discriminatory animus and modified the dismissal of state-law claims to be without prejudice.