Criminal Law Library Blog

For week ending January 11, 2008:

U.S. Supreme Court, January 08, 2008
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. US, No. 06-1164
The special statute of limitations governing the Court of Federal Claims requires sua sponte consideration of the timeliness of a lawsuit filed in that court, despite the government's waiver of the issue.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 10, 2008
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Tolson, No. 07-1250
In suit by providers of satellite television programming alleging that North Carolina's system of taxing multi-channel television programming violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, granting of defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed as plaintiffs' suit is barred by principles of comity.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 07, 2008
Sch. Dist. of the City of Pontiac v. Sec'y of the US Dep't of Educ., No. 05-2708
In school districts' suit against the Secretary of Education seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that they need not comply with the No Child Left Behind Act's (NCLB) requirements where federal funds do not cover the increased costs of compliance, dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is reversed where: 1) statutes enacted under the Spending Clause must provide clear notice to the States of their liabilities should they decide to accept federal funding under those statutes; and 2) the NCLB fails to provide clear notice as to who bears the additional costs of compliance.

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 10, 2008
Pennington v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson County, No. 07-5180
In a case brought by a police officer alleging that, after an altercation at a bar while he was off duty, he was unlawfully required to take the breathalyzer test in violation of his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, plaintiff was not seized when he submitted to the breathalyzer test, but was only afraid he would be terminated or suspended if he didn't take it; and 2) thus, no constitutional violation occurred.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 07, 2008
Richman v. Sheahan, No. 07-1487
In a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging violation of the plaintiff and her deceased son's rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, partial grant of qualified immunity is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) there was some evidence that the officers applied force intending to punish the deceased in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 2) further inquiry is required to determine whether officers in the courtroom that did not participate in the arrest were liable for failure to prevent the excessive force applied to the deceased; and 3) there was not excessive force involved in officers' removal of the plaintiff from the courtroom. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
Sain v. Wood, No. 06-3919
In a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claiming that the conditions of confinement for a person under civil commitment violated the Fourteenth Amendment, denial of summary judgment for a private physician on grounds of qualified immunity is reversed where: 1) the conditions in the facility were not objectively serious enough to establish a constitutional violation; and 2) the physician's refusal to transfer the plaintiff to a different facility was not a result of deliberate indifference, therefore he did not violate the plaintiff's clearly-established constitutional rights.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
Miyler v. Village of East Galesburg, No. 06-3625
In a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claiming violation of plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights after he lost his position as chief of police, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff did not have a constitutionally-protected property interest in his position.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
Gilbert v. Cook, No. 05-1728
In a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that prison officer violated plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment, judgment as a matter of law for defendants is reversed and remanded where the magistrate judge should have allowed the plaintiff to present evidence of the officers' alleged assault, even though his account implied the invalidity of a prison disciplinary tribunal and went against the holdings of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) and Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997). The magistrate judge should incorporate those decisions through instructions to the jury at the start of trial, as necessary during the evidence, and at the close of the evidence. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 08, 2008
Hartsfield v. Nichols, No. 06-3450
In a prisoner's action alleging that certain disciplinary actions constituted retaliation for his having successfully obtained a prior court order, and also claiming violations of his right to access the courts, dismissal of plaintiff's claims is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of the right to access claim, plaintiff failed to articulate how he suffered an actual injury; 2) on the retaliation claim, precedent establishes that a correction officer's report, even if standing alone and disputed, suffices as "some evidence" on a disputed fact when deemed credible in an impartial hearing; 3) consequently, the disciplinary violations were sufficiently supported by some evidence. .

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
Jones v. Minnesota Dep't of Corr., No. 06-3900
In a suit against the Minnesota Department of Corrections and individual prison officials for allegedly violating plaintiff's mother's Eighth Amendment rights, by deliberate indifference to her serious need of medical care, resulting in her death, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) on the undisputed facts of the case, no reasonable jury could find that the decedent suffered from an objectively serious medical need; 2) on the record, no reasonable jury could find that defendants had actual knowledge of a serious medical need; and 3) defendant-nurse was entitled to qualified immunity.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
Stodghill v. Wellston Sch. Dist., No. 07-1190
In a suit by a superintendent against his former school district and officials arising from alleged stigmatizing public comments made about plaintiff in connection with his severance, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss is reversed where the alleged statements at issue, as a matter of law, were not sufficiently stigmatizing to trigger his procedural due process right to a name clearing hearing.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 10, 2008
Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., No. 07-1028
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs while she was incarcerated at a correctional center, summary judgment for defendants and other rulings against plaintiff are affirmed over claims that the district court erred in: 1) denying her motion to amend the complaint; 2) granting defendants' motion to strike a doctor's expert affidavit; and 3) granting summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 11, 2008
Snodgrass v. Robinson, No. 07-1463
In a prisoner's suit alleging that the Iowa Board of Parole, its members, and the governor of Iowa violated her constitutional rights by applying laws and regulations governing sentence commutation requests even though the laws were passed after her conviction, dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim is affirmed as any form of relief for plaintiff depends on a speculative, unpredictable, and wholly discretionary grant of clemency by the governor. .

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
Berger v. City of Seattle, No. 05-35752
In an action brought by a street performer challenging the constitutionality of certain rules governing a zone covering about 80 acres of land in downtown Seattle, summary judgment for plaintiff finding the rules facially violated the First Amendment is reversed as: 1) the rules satisfy the requirements for valid restrictions on expression under the First Amendment; 2) the rules are content neutral and narrowly tailored rules, and leave open ample alternatives for communication; and 3) the rules also survive rational basis review under the Fourteenth Amendment.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 11, 2008
Nelson v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., No. 07-56424
In an action brought by scientists, engineers, and administrative support personnel at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) challenging NASA's recently adopted requirement that "low risk" contract employees like themselves submit to in-depth background investigations, denial of plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is reversed and remanded where they raised serious questions as to the merits of their informational privacy and APA claims, and the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor.

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, January 10, 2008
Utah Educ. Ass'n v. Shurtleff, No. 06-4142
In an action brought by various Utah labor unions claiming that Utah's Voluntary Contributions Act (VCA) violates the First Amendment by restricting public employees' political speech, summary judgment for the unions is affirmed where: 1) state restrictions on payroll systems owned and maintained by independent local governments and school boards do not fall under the nonpublic forum exception to ordinary First Amendment analysis; 2) because the VCA regulates political contributions, "exacting scrutiny" applies; and 3) the VCA is unconstitutional as applied to municipalities, counties, school districts, and other local public employers. .

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, January 11, 2008
Rasul v. Rumsfeld, No. 06-5209
In case brought by Guantanamo Bay detainees seeking damages for their alleged illegal detention and torture, dismissal of claims under the Constitution, the Alien Tort Statute, and the Geneva Conventions is affirmed. However, denial of motion to dismiss the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim is reversed. Since the plaintiffs are aliens and were located outside sovereign U.S. territory at the time their alleged RFRA claim arose, they do not fall with the definition of "person" and, thus, are not protected by RFRA.

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, January 09, 2008
St. Christopher Assocs., L.P. v. US, No. 2007-5069
In a suit against HUD for breach of contract and Fifth Amendment takings claims, arising from HUD's failure to consider plaintiff's request for a rent increase, summary judgment for HUD is affirmed where: 1) a Regulatory Agreement does not expressly, nor by implication, require HUD to consider a rent increase request and, thus, HUD did not breach the agreement by not considering the request; and 2) there was no Fifth Amendment taking by HUD's failure to consider the request.