Federal Civil Practice

Dist. Ct. erred in failing to conduct during 10-month period required screening under 28 USC section 1915A(a) of plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison officials and medical personnel ignored his serious hemorrhoid condition. Moreover, Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief seeking said medical treatment where Dist. Ct. held mistaken belief that plaintiff’s pain could never constitute irreparable injury. On remand, Dist. Ct. must forthwith conduct required screening and authorize service of complaint on defendants so that prompt hearing can be held on plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction.

Dist. Ct erred in granting defendant-school district’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiffs-students and parents alleging that defendant violated Establishment Clause when defendant held its high school graduation ceremonies in evangelical Christian church. Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment where instant ceremonies were held in church sanctuary that featured staff information booths with religious literature and banners, as well as large Latin cross, and where said setting necessarily conveyed message of improper religious endorsement, as well as improper perception of link between church and state. Fact that defendant did not itself adorn church with religous literature or banners or that students themselves picked church as site of their graduation ceremonies did not require different result. (Dissent filed.)

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s appeal of Dist. Ct.’s order staying plaintiff’s federal lawsuit alleging that defendant-primary insurance company failed to undertake reasonable opportunities to settle lawsuit that resulted in judgment against plaintiff in excess of primary insurance policy limit, where stay was based on existence of plaintiff’s pending state court action against excess insurance company claiming that said insurance company wrongfully refused to cover any judgment in excess of primary policy limits. Dist. Ct. order was interlocutory in nature that could not be appealed at that time, and Ct. rejected contention that stay order was reviewable as abstention order where Ct. noted that, although both state and federal claims were related, if plaintiff lost in state court against excess insurance company, it could still proceed on failure to settle action against primary insurer in federal court.

Ct. of Appeal found that it had jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s petition for leave to appeal from Dist. Ct. order that partially decertified class by eliminating up to 71 percent of potential members within class, after holding that said order was appealable under Rule 23(f). However, Ct. ultimately denied petition for appeal after finding that plaintiff’s challenge did not satisfy criteria for Rule 23(f) appeal.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing for failure to state cause of action plaintiff-prisoner’s action alleging that defendant-prison violated Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate his disability concerning necrosis in his hip by adding grab bars so that plaintiff could use prison toilet and showers and could navigate prison hallways leading prison cafeteria. He also asserted that defendant blocked his attempt to qualify for work release on account of his disability. Plaintiff’s stated viable Rehabilitation Act claim where he alleged that his disability pertained to major life activity, and defendant’s refusal to accommodate plaintiff’s disability kept him from accessing activities granted to other prisoners. Moreover, plaintiff alleged that he was healthy enough to qualify for work release program, and that his request for work release was denied only because he walked with cane.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff-wheelchair-bound prisoner’s claim alleging that defendants-prison officials violated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by denying plaintiff’s request to engage in outdoor recreational activities unless at least nine other disabled inmates made similar request, and that defendant’s refusal resulted in plaintiff going seven weeks without such recreation. While plaintiff’s claim might not be viable where question remains as to whether state officers are immune from lawsuits under ADA, Dist. Ct. should have considered plaintiff’s claim under Rehabilitation Act where: (1) plaintiff sued agency that received federal funds; and (2) plaintiff asserted that defendants denied him prison activity on account of his disability.

Ct. of Appeals dismissed as moot plaintiff's appeal of denial of his request for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendant from imposing one-year suspension from school based upon discovery of marijuana in plaintiff's dorm room. Record showed that terms of suspension had expired prior to disposition of appeal, and thus enforcement of preliminary injunction would be pointless.

Ct. of Appeals affirmed Dist. Ct.'s dismissal of plaintiff-minority shareholder's state-court actions that related to plaintiff's federal claim that defendants-majority shareholders in said corporation had abused bankruptcy process to cause plaintiff to incur certain losses. Ct. of Appeals, in previously remanding case back to Dist. Ct. in plaintiff's prior appeal, indicated that plaintiff's state-law claims depended on viability of federal abuse of bankruptcy claim that had been previously dismissed by Dist. Ct., and plaintiff on remand had failed to have Dist. Ct. vacate prior dismissal of federal abuse of bankruptcy claim when re-asserting same state-law claims.

Ct. of Appeals dismissed as moot plaintiff's appeal of Dist. Ct. order that denied plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction to prevent defendant-Housing Authority from proceeding in state court action to evict plaintiff from his residence in public housing building. Record showed that subsequent to Dist. Ct.'s order, state court entered order that evicted plaintiff from his residence, and thus matter was moot since any possible use for preliminary injunction had expired upon plaintiff's eviction.

Ct. of Appeals granted defendants’ petition for leave to appeal that challenged Dist. Ct.’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for class certification in section 1983 action alleging that defendants’ failure to provide more than one dentist for jail of 10,000 inmates violated Eighth Amendment, where defendants asserted that Dist. Ct. was required under notions of comity to deny class certification motion where two other Dist. Ct. judges within same division had denied same request in two prior identical cases. Ct. of Appeals, in rejecting defendants’ argument, ultimately found that under Smith, 131 SCt 2368, rulings in both prior cases were not binding on instant Dist. Ct. judge, and that notions of comity could not serve to counter ruling in Smith.