Federal Civil Practice

Dist Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff-railroad's request for injunctive relief seeking to bar defendant-transit authority from proceeding on its state-court condemnation action to obtain plaintiff's railroad right of way on grounds that state court action was preempted by federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (Act). Defendant's condemnation action constituted attempt to avoid paying plaintiff rent for right of way pursuant to existing lease, and record showed that plaintiff and its right of way fell under provisions of said Act. Ct. further held that proposed state condemnation action, which would establish permanent easement over instant right of way, was regulation of railroad transportation that was preempted by Act.

In ERISA action seeking long-term disability benefits and attorney fees, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant-plan's motion to dismiss where defendant had previously informed plaintiff that it would (and did pay) benefits requested in instant case plus interest. Plaintiff's receipt of her requested benefits and interest rendered case moot and served to deprive Dist. Ct. of jurisdiction to enter subsequent order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees where fee petition had failed to contain any documentation to support assertion of reasonable hourly rate or amount of time spent on case. Fact that defendant did not challenge amount of time asserted by plaintiff's counsel did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-mortgagors' motion for summary judgment in action seeking relief arising out of manner and means in which defendants obtained foreclosure on plaintiffs' home in prior state-court action as well as pursued plaintiffs' eviction from said home. Dist. Ct. could properly invoke Rooker-Feldmen doctrine to dismiss two of 22 counts where essence of said counts were related to belated defenses to prior state-court foreclosure action. As to remaining counts, Ct. rejected plaintiff's claim that defendants were required in summary judgment motion to distinguish all possibility that events forming basis of plaintiffs' claims occurred. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying either plaintiffs' motion to strike portions of defendants' affidavit supporting summary judgment motion or plaintiffs' motion to allow additional discovery during pendency of summary judgment motion.

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider Bankruptcy Ct. order remanding state-court action alleging that defendant breached confidentiality agreement with respect to parties' plan to bid on assets of third-party debtor in bankruptcy proceeding where said action had been removed to Bankruptcy Court as part of complaint seeking various remedies against other entities that was related to said bankruptcy proceeding. While Bankruptcy Ct. actually had authority under supplemental jurisdiction to consider state-court action, even though aspects of complaint relating to prior Bankruptcy Ct. order had been dismissed from case, Bankruptcy Ct.'s remand, that was based on mistaken finding that it lacked jurisdiction, rendered remand order not reviewable under 28 USC section 1452(b).

In section 1983 action alleging that defendant-police officer unlawfully searched plaintiff's residence, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in dismissing case under Rule 12(b)(5) due to plaintiff's failure to timely serve police officer with copy of complaint. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), plaintiff was required to serve instant complaint within 120 days of filing lawsuit, and record showed that plaintiff did not obtain service on defendant until 525 days after instant lawsuit had been removed to federal court. Fact that plaintiff had made only one prior attempt to serve defendant (i.e. on Police Superintendent), or that instant dismissal occurred after expiration of relevant statute of limitations period did not require different result given length of instant delay, and given fact that Police Superintendent had no authority to accept service on behalf of police officer.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-employee's section 1983 action alleging that defendant deprived her of due process when it eliminated her original job paying $26.99 per hour and subsequently hired her in similar position paying $19.28 per hour with fewer duties. While government employee has constitutionally protected property interest in her position and may not be removed from it without due process, said employee is not entitled to prior notice or hearing about said elimination where, as here, said elimination was made in connection with governmental reorganization. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that defendant's reorganization was pretext for removing her from her original position where record showed that basis for reorganization was related to cost savings.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs-prisoners' class action alleging that defendant's prohibition on plaintiffs from advertising for pen-pals or receiving materials from websites allowing persons to advertise for pen-pals violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights. Defendant's rational for said prohibition, i.e., to prevent prisoners from developing relationships with outside persons for the purpose of financially defrauding them, was legitimate governmental objective, and instant prohibition was reasonably related to said objective.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing under Heck, 512 US 477, plaintiff-prisoner’s section 1983 claim alleging that defendants-prison officials used excessive force against plaintiff in altercation in prison. While plaintiff’s failure to challenge prison board’s prior determination that defendant had been aggressor in subject altercation could potentially foreclose plaintiff from bringing instant action to extent that instant lawsuit challenges essential findings made by prison board in plaintiff’s prison-discipline case, Dist. Ct. should have dismissed plaintiff’s lawsuit without prejudice to filing another complaint that had allegations which did not conflict with prison board’s findings against plaintiff.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's verdict in favor of plaintiff-prisoner's estate in section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prisoner's medical needs by denying her multiple requests for medical care, which led to her death. However, defendants were entitled to new damages hearing since Dist. Ct. had erred in denying defendants' attempt to introduce evidence of prisoner's drug addiction and arrest record to counter prior testimony of prisoner's son, who stated that prisoner was solid role model.