Posts in category “Weekly Roundup”
Last week produced a few decisions of note. The Sixth Circuit said that you don’t need a certificate of appealability to appeal a decision on habeas bail. The Eleventh Circuit refused to consider a district court’s post-appeal statements on the sentence it would have imposed had there been no error. Two courts addressed the order-designation requirement for notices of appeal. And there were a few cert-stage developments in cases I’ve been following.
Let’s start, however, with a new cert petition that gives the Supreme Court a chance to disarm the finality trap.
Last week, the Tenth Circuit tackled a bunch of appellate-jurisdiction issues before reversing the refiling restrictions that a district court had imposed on a plaintiff’s attorney. The Fifth Circuit rejected a defendant’s attempt to challenge the factual basis for a qualified-immunity denial. The Seventh Circuit once again explained district courts’ discretion to extend appeal deadlines due to excusable neglect or good cause. The Eleventh Circuit held that it could not review a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals that remanded a case to an immigration judge for further proceedings. And the Third Circuit said that attaching an order to a notice of appeal counts as designating that order for appeal.
Last week saw a rare pushback against fact-based qualified-immunity appeals. Those appeals are both frivolous and common. Sanctions are rare. But the Sixth Circuit ordered some defendants to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for challenging the factual basis for an immunity denial. In other decisions, the Fifth Circuit applied Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) to appeals under the collateral-order doctrine. The Ninth Circuit reversed a remand order because the district court never allowed the defendant to establish the amount in controversy. And the Ninth Circuit noted that it will now hear immediate appeals from denials of Nevada’s anti-SLAPP motions. There are also several recent cert-stage developments of note involving preserving issues through denied summary-judgment motions, appealing denials of the state-action-antitrust defense, and the application of Hall v. Hall to pre-Hall judgments. Plus administrative remands, FOIA appeals, and the finality of dismissals without prejudice.
Last week, the Third Circuit illustrated one side of the split on whether courts must (or even can) address standing and other issues of subject-matter jurisdiction alongside interlocutory appeals. The Sixth Circuit vacated an improper partial judgment under Rule 54(b). The Ninth Circuit used the collateral-order doctrine to review an ERISA dispute that seemed to have stalled in the district court. And the First Circuit refused to use mandamus to order the petitioners’ release from immigration custody, which they had sought due concerns about COVID-19 and overcrowding. Plus an appeal after an implicit denial of immunity and an appeal from a dismissal without prejudice due to a lack of service.
There’s a lot to talk about from last week. The Federal Circuit said that it could use mandamus to review the decision to institute inter partes review in patent cases. Several decisions addressed the content requirements for a notice of appeal, including a Second Circuit decision on the failure of named class members to appeal alongside the class representatives. Other decisions addressed appeals under the collateral-order doctrine, including a Federal Circuit decision on orders unsealing a complaint containing allegedly confidential information. The Fifth Circuit addressed its jurisdiction to review orders requiring an in-person guilty plea as well as decisions ordering a criminal defendant released from ICE custody due to her release on bail. That court also split over the existence of a Rule 58 judgment in a case. Plus the effect of pro se, post-judgment motions by represented parties on the appeal timeline, and a Bivens appeal.
But first some hypothetical jurisdiction, which the First Circuit used to avoid deciding whether a criminal defendant can appeal an order refusing to strike a “Death Notice” in a death-penalty case.
Last week saw the Tenth Circuit reject an attempt to dispute the factual basis for a qualified-immunity denial. There were also decisions on finality after dismissals without prejudice, pendent appellate jurisdiction in an injunction appeal, and the relation forward of a premature notice of appeal.
Last week saw only two decisions of note, both involving appeals from remand orders. The Fifth Circuit held that § 1447(d) does not bar appellate review of abstention-based remand orders. And the Ninth Circuit dealt with an appeal from a bankruptcy remand that, while technically marking the end of an action, was too related to an ongoing bankruptcy proceeding to be deemed final. Plus two recent cert petitions of note: one asking if discovery appeals under Perlman require a privilege claim, and one suggesting that Hall v. Hall should apply only prospectively.
Last week saw another COVID-19 related appeal from a temporary restraining order. The Eleventh Circuit addressed the order-designation requirement for notices of appeal with mixed results. The Ninth Circuit held that it could not review a refusal to expedite criminal proceedings after a defendant allegedly violated the terms of his supervised release. The Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from a defendant’s children after the defendant used their bank accounts to post a supersedeas bond. And the Eighth Circuit held that a decision was not final due to unresolved claims—even though the district court thought it was done with the case.
Let’s start with a new cert petition on preserving legal issues via a denied summary-judgment motion.
Last week, the D.C. Circuit split over when a dismissal without prejudice became final. That court also addressed its jurisdiction to immediately review the denial of a Glomar response in a Freedom of Information Act case. The Tenth Circuit split on the finality of an exemption order in bankruptcy when the amount of the exemption had yet to be determined. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed a premature appeal from a without-prejudice denial of intervention. The Federal Circuit applied its new cumulative-finality rule. And two courts addressed their jurisdiction to review transfer orders.
What a week. Another court weighed in on Guerrero-Lasprilla’s effect on appeals from the denial of cancellation-of-removal. Several courts had to deal with potentially deficient notices of appeal. The Eleventh Circuit applied its new (and improved) law on the finality trap. The Third Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction when the district court had not resolved the defendants’ cross-claims, even though those cross-claims were effectively moot. And two courts rejected defendants’ attempts to challenge the facts in a qualified-immunity appeal.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More Contact