September 28 – October 2, 2009.
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, September 28, 2009 Chiang v. Skeirik, No. 08-2105
District court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s amended complaint arising from a denial of his petition for a fiancee visa is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s claim that his visa was improperly denied as he failed to state a plausible entitlement to relief; 2) district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s Bivens claims as he failed to name any officers in their individual capacities in the first amended complaint and a Bivens claim does not lie against the United States; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint as it would have been futile. .
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, October 01, 2009 Remexcel Managerial Consultants, Inc. v. Arlequin, No. 08-1753
In a political discrimination case against a municipality in Puerto Rico, default judgment against defendants is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the default judgment for repeated discovery violations, and the law of the case doctrine bars defendants’ attempt to re-argue the adequacy of plaintiffs’ complaint.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 28, 2009 Frontera Resources Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Co. of Azerbaijan, No. 07-1815 In a petition to confirm a Swedish arbitral award against the government of Azerbaijan, dismissal of the petition for lack of jurisdiction is reversed where the district court erred by holding that foreign states and their agents are entitled to rights under the Due Process Clause.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 28, 2009 Jova v. Smith, No. 08-2816 In an action by prisoners claiming that defendant prison personnel infringed their right to practice their religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the restrictions imposed on plaintiffs’ practice were justified by powerful security and administrative interests, but reversed in part where defendants did not demonstrate that the religious/meatless alternative menu was the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling administrative interests.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, September 30, 2009 Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., No. 05-5104 In an action seeking abatement of defendants’ ongoing contributions to the public nuisance of global warming, the dismissal of the complaint is vacated where: 1) plaintiffs’ claims did not present non-justiciable political questions; 2) plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring their claims; 3) plaintiffs stated claims under the federal common law of nuisance; 4) plaintiffs’ claims were not displaced by the Clean Air Act; and 5) the discretionary function exception did not provide defendant Tennessee Valley Authority with immunity from suit.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, October 02, 2009 McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, No. 08-4109 In plaintiffs’ section 1983 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia and various police officers arising from an impromptu street celebration after the Eagles’ National Football Conference championship win, the judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) district court’s deductions and adjustments in calculating the attorneys’ fees were well reasoned and amply supported by the record; 2) district court properly rejected plaintiff’s argument that it should have instructed the jury that any amount of force used to effect an arrest without probable cause is per se excessive; 3)district court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the supervisory liability claim and on the Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim as there is insufficient evidence on the record to support these claims; and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny plaintiffs’ request to admit rebuttal evidence with respect to their First Amendment claims.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 30, 2009 Fairley v. Hattiesburg, No. 08-60942 In an action under the Voting Rights Act concerning the drawing of districts for municipal elections, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to present evidence constituting a redistricting plan that would have shown either the factual or legal possibility of creating a majority-minority district by dividing college dormitory students among the city’s wards; and 2) the district court did not clearly err in its use of total voting age population in making its computations.
U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 01, 2009 Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, No. 08-60122 In a petition for review of the BIA’s order denying petitioner’s request for administrative closure and dismissing his appeal from the BIA’s order removing him from the U.S., the petition is denied where: 1) because the Department of Homeland Security opposed the administrative closure, the BIA had no discretion to administratively close the case; and 2) petitioner had no fundamental liberty interest in being able to reside with his children and work in the U.S.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 02, 2009 Harris v. City of Circleville, No. 08-3252 In plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit alleging various constitutional violations of his rights while being booked at the city jail, district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) facts are sufficient to establish a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights with respect to his excessive force claims; 2) plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; 3) plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants used excessive force and delayed medical treatment because of plaintiff’s race in violation of his equal protection rights; and 4) a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant acted with a malicious purpose or in a wanton or reckless manner with respect to plaintiff’s assault and battery claim.
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 02, 2009 Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc. , No. 08-5545 In plaintiff’s lawsuit against the city of Knoxville alleging that the city’s procedures for citing and levying fines for red-light runners captured on cameras installed at intersections violates the state and federal constitution, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed as the city’s agreement to give her a hearing renders her challenges to the hearing’s procedures unripe.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 29, 2009 Krasilych v. Holder, No. 09-1026 Petition for review of the BIA’s denial of a Ukrainian citizen’s application for withholding of removal is denied as the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in removal proceedings, and here, petitioner obtained the I-551 stamp on his passport during an undercover investigation coordinated by immigration authorities.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 30, 2009 Cooney v. Rossiter, No. 08-3675 In plaintiff’s case against several defendants arising from a custody case in which the Illinois state court found that she suffered from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, district court’s dismissal of her suit is affirmed where: 1) guardians ad litem and court-appointed experts, including psychiatrists, are absolutely immune from liability for damages when they act at the court’s direction; 2) no factual allegations tie the defendants, who are private individuals, to a conspiracy with a state actor; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion.
U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 01, 2009 Hunter v. Amin, No. 08-3719 In plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case against a county including the county sheriff, county jail employees, and a psychiatrist provided by the county jail, arising from the death of plaintiff’s brother while detained in jail, district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of all of the defendants is affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part where: 1) district court correctly concluded that county’s policy of requiring a corrections officer to be present during psychiatric examinations at the jail did not violate plaintiff’s brother’s constitutional right to adequate mental health treatment; 2) summary judgment as to a medical malpractice claim against the treating psychiatrist is reversed and remanded where plaintiff’s complaint and brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment make clear that she also alleges malpractice by the doctor in discontinuing her brother’s medication; and 3) because only state law claims now remain in the case, the district! court should determine whether the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 28, 2009 Guggenheim v. Goleta, No. 06-56306 In a Takings Clause challenge to a city’s mobile home rent control ordinance, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) the city forfeited its right to argue that plaintiffs’ action was not ripe; 2) a facial challenge under Penn Central existed as a viable legal claim; and 3) the regulation was invalid considering (a) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; (b) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations; and (c) the character of the governmental action.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 02, 2009 Klein v. San Clemente, No. 08-55015 In a First Amendment challenge to a city ordinance prohibiting all leafleting of unoccupied vehicles, the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction is reversed where plaintiffs were likely to succeed in demonstrating that the city’s justification for its prohibition was insufficient and they otherwise met the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the prohibition.
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, September 30, 2009 Campbell v. Johnson, No. 08-11667 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on defendant’s alleged refusal to release plaintiff on bail after the court approved a property bond, summary judgment for defendant-sheriff is reversed where: 1) there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendant personally participated in the alleged due process violation; and 2) the district court failed to determine whether minimizing the enforcement costs of a property bond constituted a compelling interest for purposes of the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, September 30, 2009 Stockton E. Water Dist. v. US, No. 07-5142 In plaintiffs’ case involving claims that defendant-federal government failed to provide the quantities of water that it agreed to make available under contract, trial court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) trial court’s determination with regard to the government’s defense that Reclamation had implicit authority to reallocate the water in response to a change in law and policy is reversed as this was not a valid defense on the record; 2) trial court’s determination with regard to the Government’s defense that the shortages were the result of causes beyond the control of the United States such as to absolve it under the contract provisions is reversed as this was not a valid defense; 3) with regard to the sovereign acts doctrine defense, the trial court was correct in determining that defense unavailing; 4) trial court’s dismissal of the takings claim is vacated as plaintiffs are free to pursue their takings claim if t! hey so choose with regard to the years for which the government has been found not liable as a matter of contract law; and 5) regarding the breach of contract claim, the case is remanded for a determination of damages for the years for which the government was liable. ..
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, October 01, 2009 Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc. v. US, No. 09-5015 The Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal of plaintiff’s takings claim pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6) is affirmed as the court did not err in holding that the plaintiff failed to allege a legally cognizable property interest for Fifth Amendment purposes in the ability to freely transfer a portfolio of insurance policies, and thus, there was no cognizable property interest that could be taken when the Risk Management Agency rejected the proposed sale to another company in the crop insurance business.
California Appellate Districts, September 29, 2009 People v. Thompson, No. A123269 Trial court’s finding that defendant was subject to mandatory registration as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290 based on a sodomy conviction is reversed and remanded as an order imposing mandatory sex offender registration on defendant due to his conviction for a mutually voluntary act of sodomy with a 17-year-old minor violates his right to equal protection, as guaranteed by the federal and California Constitutions.