Category Archives: Abstention

N.D.Ohio: The clear potential for violence in a volatile domestic disturbance was a continuing exigency

The clear potential for violence in a volatile domestic disturbance was exigency. “As is evident from the video, the exigency did not terminate due to the passage of time or as a result of [Off.] Sosenko’s attempts to manage the … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Emergency / exigency, Excessive force, Seizure | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: The clear potential for violence in a volatile domestic disturbance was a continuing exigency

CA11: § 1983 case can’t be used as substitute for state court appeal of a 4A claim

“Mr. Lynn does not raise a non-frivolous issue for appeal. Below, the District Court granted summary judgment to the defendant officers because it concluded Mr. Lynn’s Fourth Amendment claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. … [¶] The District Court … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention | Comments Off on CA11: § 1983 case can’t be used as substitute for state court appeal of a 4A claim

S.D.Ga.: Bodycam video shows homeowner’s consent to entry over guest’s gun was voluntary

The owner of the house, captured on a bodycam video, consented to a search of the house for a firearm that defendant, an overnight guest, allegedly brought into the house. United States v. McRae, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26680 (S.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Consent, Drug or alcohol testing | Comments Off on S.D.Ga.: Bodycam video shows homeowner’s consent to entry over guest’s gun was voluntary

CA9: Sexual groping during a prison search states 4A excessive force claim

It was clearly established that groping a (transgender) woman during prison searches was unreasonable as excessive force. Goff v. Ramirez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4876 (9th Cir. Feb. 13, 2020). (The plaintiff being transgender had nothing to do with the … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Excessive force, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on CA9: Sexual groping during a prison search states 4A excessive force claim

CA6: FRCP 60(b) can’t be used to backdoor a successor habeas

Habeas petitioner’s attempt to use Rule 60(b) to attack the rejection of a Fourth Amendment claim was a backdoor successor habeas that doesn’t satisfy grounds for one. In re Henderson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4856 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2020)*:

Posted in Abstention, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA6: FRCP 60(b) can’t be used to backdoor a successor habeas

CA11: The Heck bar is to the cause of action; it isn’t jurisdictional

The Heck bar is to the cause of action; it isn’t jurisdictional. Teagan v. City of McDonough, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4055 (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020):

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abstention | Comments Off on CA11: The Heck bar is to the cause of action; it isn’t jurisdictional

E.D.Mich.: Sole 4A question in § 2254 is fair opportunity to litigate, not correctness of result

Even an erroneous Fourth Amendment decision in state court does not overcome the Stone v. Powell bar in a § 2254. The question is the fair opportunity to litigate, not the result. Green v. Nagy, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16502 … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Sole 4A question in § 2254 is fair opportunity to litigate, not correctness of result

CA9: Vacated and dismissed case on post-conviction doesn’t invoke Heck bar

Three men convicted in Alaska state court got their convictions vacated and dismissed when someone else confessed to the crime. The lack of a criminal judgment rendered the Heck bar inapplicable. Roberts v. City of Fairbanks, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abstention | Comments Off on CA9: Vacated and dismissed case on post-conviction doesn’t invoke Heck bar

D.Utah: Defendant in prior dismissed federal action by state consumer protection agency refiled in state court won’t prevent state from using evidence obtained for that action

The state sued in federal court for relief, and it got a TRO, but the claim was later dismissed. Copies of records were made and originals returned. After the state sued in state court, the defendants sought application of the … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abstention, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on D.Utah: Defendant in prior dismissed federal action by state consumer protection agency refiled in state court won’t prevent state from using evidence obtained for that action

D.Haw.: USMJ’s prior civil case involving defendant didn’t make him not “neutral and detached”

The USMJ was involved in a prior qui tam civil case by defendant. Defendant in a later criminal case argues that the USMJ should have been disqualified from considering a search warrant affidavit for her property that led to the … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention, Consent, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on D.Haw.: USMJ’s prior civil case involving defendant didn’t make him not “neutral and detached”

CA7 (en banc): Heck bar overcome by pardon, which started SOL

Plaintiff sued for malicious prosecution after he was imprisoned for a 1977 murder, paroled, and finally pardoned by the Governor. The pardon overcame the Heck bar, and the claim became ripe with the pardon. The court takes the occasion to … Continue reading

Posted in Abstention | Comments Off on CA7 (en banc): Heck bar overcome by pardon, which started SOL

CA11: No Heck bar for § 1983 false arrest claim over dismissed criminal count

The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s § 1983 false arrest claim against the deputy on Heck grounds because Heck did not apply–the charge that formed the basis for his § 1983 claim was dismissed, and his § 1983 suit … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abstention | Comments Off on CA11: No Heck bar for § 1983 false arrest claim over dismissed criminal count