The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: October 4–10, 2020
There’s little to report from last week.
The Ninth Circuit on Modified Injunctions
The only decision of note was Flores v. Barr, in which the Ninth Circuit discussed its jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court’s ongoing supervision of a consent decree.
Simplifying a bit, Flores involved an immigration-related consent decree that requires (among other things) that the government transfer apprehended minors to licensed programs within three days. After an independent monitor reported that the government was using hotels to house apprehended minors, the district court ordered the government to stop.
The government then appealed. It also asked the Ninth Circuit to stay the district court’s order. And in seeking the stay, the government argued that appellate jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the district court had effectively modified an injunction.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. It determined that the district court’s order required the government to take actions that were already required of it under the consent decree. With no modification of an injunction, there was no jurisdiction for the government’s appeal. So a stay was not warranted; the government was unlikely to succeed in its appeal.
Flores v. Barr, 2020 WL 5951115 (9th Cir. Oct. 4, 2020), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw.
Cert Denied in Hinson v. Bias
Also of note, the Supreme Court denied cert in Hinson v. Bias. The petition contended that the Eleventh Circuit exceeded its limited jurisdiction in a qualified-immunity appeal and made its own assessment of the summary-judgment record. Given the frequency with which defendants flout those jurisdictional limits, I was hoping the Court would reiterate them.
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 ContactRelated Posts
It’s the fourth annual winter-break edition of the weekly roundup. As I have in previous years, I took a few weeks off from Final Decisions. But I’m back with a roundup covering the last three weeks of 2022. Those weeks saw a pair of collateral-order decisions, the effect of Nasrallah v. Barr on other kinds […]
Continue reading....
There were three cases of note from last week. The Third Circuit held that notices of appeal do not encompass post-notice decisions. Litigants must file a second notice, or amend the first, to appeal those decisions. The D.C. Circuit held that it could not review a facial challenge to a statute in an injunction appeal […]
Continue reading....
There were a bunch of interesting decisions last week. In the continuing saga of the Rule 3(c) amendments, the Second Circuit acknowledged them and applied them retroactively. In other decisions, the Sixth Circuit explained that it could review class certification in an appeal from a class-wide injunction. The Fourth Circuit clarified the basis for its […]
Continue reading....
I took a break from the roundup last week, but I’m back with a double-sized edition. In the last two weeks, another circuit didn’t recognize that the recent Rule 3(c) amendments abrogated its caselaw. The Eleventh Circuit determined that a stay put an action in “suspended animation,” thereby allowing an appeal from the stay. The […]
Continue reading....
Last week, the Tenth Circuit once again used a pro se plaintiff’s notice of appeal to limit the scope of its review despite recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). The Second Circuit gave a thorough explanation of its jurisdiction over decisions made in post-judgment proceedings. The Fifth Circuit heard an appeal from […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....