First Circuit, Departing from Second Circuit, Holds that Federal Courts Lack Authority to Release Grand Jury Records in “Historically Significant” Cases

In In Re Petition Records Release (Lepore v. United States), No. 20-1836 (1st Cir. Feb. 28, 2022), the First Circuit sidesteps whether federal courts have inherent authority to release grand jury proceedings from long-completed cases, outside of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). It instead holds, whether or not such power exists, it cannot be exercisedContinue reading “First Circuit, Departing from Second Circuit, Holds that Federal Courts Lack Authority to Release Grand Jury Records in “Historically Significant” Cases”

Sixth Circuit and En Banc Eleventh Circuit Each Forgive the Government’s Abandonment of Fourth Amendment Arguments, Finding Them Forfeited Rather Than Waived

Two courts issue decisions the same day considering Fourth Amendment arguments that the government forfeited, holding that federal courts of appeals have the power and can properly exercise their discretion to reach such issues. United States v. Campbell, No. 16-10128 (11th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022): Defendant Campbell was indicted for possessing a firearm as aContinue reading “Sixth Circuit and En Banc Eleventh Circuit Each Forgive the Government’s Abandonment of Fourth Amendment Arguments, Finding Them Forfeited Rather Than Waived”

District Court Judge Confused Prudential and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Leading to Premature Dismissal, Holds Fifth Circuit

In Abraugh v. Altimus, No. 21-30205 (5th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022), the Fifth Circuit holds that the district court cut short a plaintiff’s opportunity to proceed with her complaint by ruling erroneously that there was no subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. “Karen Abraugh brought this suit over the wrongful death of her son Randall. AuthoritiesContinue reading “District Court Judge Confused Prudential and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Leading to Premature Dismissal, Holds Fifth Circuit”

Summary Judgment Inappropriate Even Where Plaintiff’s Only Eyewitness Account Is Contradicted by Others on the Scene as Well as by the Witness’s Original Police Statement, Holds Sixth Circuit

In Gambrel v. Knox Cnty., Ky., No. 20-6027 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2022), the panel reverses in part summary judgment in a § 1983 Fourth Amendment excessive force case. Applying Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), the panel holds that the principle that witness testimony may be disregarded on summary judgment if it is “blatantlyContinue reading “Summary Judgment Inappropriate Even Where Plaintiff’s Only Eyewitness Account Is Contradicted by Others on the Scene as Well as by the Witness’s Original Police Statement, Holds Sixth Circuit”

Federal Magistrate Judge Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Where Defendants Had Not Yet Appeared and Consented, Holds Third Circuit

In Burton v. Schamp, No. 18-1174 (3d Cir. Feb. 3, 2022), the Third Circuit—hearing two consolidated prisoner appeals—holds that the failure of unserved defendants to consent to a U.S. federal magistrate judge (magistrate) before the complaint is dismissed deprives the magistrate of subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). The panel rejects defendants’ arguments in supportContinue reading “Federal Magistrate Judge Lacked Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint Where Defendants Had Not Yet Appeared and Consented, Holds Third Circuit”

Sixth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether Michigan’s Affidavit-of-Merit and Presuit-Notice Rules for Medical-Malpractice Actions Apply in Federal Court Under Erie and Hanna

In Albright v. Christensen. No. 21-1046 (6th Cir. Jan 31, 2022), a 2-1 panel holds that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure bar application of Michigan state-law rules requiring that a lawsuit against a medical professional for malpractice be preceded by 182-days’ notice to the defendant and accompanied by an  “affidavit of merit signed byContinue reading “Sixth Circuit Panel Splits Over Whether Michigan’s Affidavit-of-Merit and Presuit-Notice Rules for Medical-Malpractice Actions Apply in Federal Court Under Erie and Hanna”