Latest 2 Cases: Murphy v. City of Tulsa (Civil Procedure), Sandusky v. Goetz (Constitutional Law)

Evaluating the Lawsuit Attacking Mississippi’s Distinctive Method of Picking Governors: Part Three in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

In this third of a series of columns on a legal challenge to Mississippi’s method of selecting governors, Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone discuss the merits of the challenge, with a particular focus on the plaintiffs’ contention that the method violates the one-person, one-vote principle enshrined in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Amar and Mazzone discuss the relevant precedents and argue that based on those precedents, the challenge has solid legal ground on which to proceed.

Read More

Murphy v. City of Tulsa

Docket: 18-5097

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Robert Edwin Bacharach

Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Criminal Law, Government & Administrative Law

This appeal arose from the Tulsa, Oklahoma Police Department’s investigation into the murder of an infant. The police suspected the infant’s mother, plaintiff-appellant Michelle Murphy. She ultimately confessed, but later recanted and sued the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding that Murphy had not presented evidence that would trigger municipal liability. Finding no reversible error after review of the district court record, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Sandusky v. Goetz

Docket: 18-1483

Opinion Date: December 16, 2019

Judge: Mary Beck Briscoe

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Petitioner Aaron Sandusky, a federal prisoner then-serving a 120-month sentence in connection with two marijuana-trafficking convictions, filed a petition for habeas relief, asserting that a congressional appropriations rider prevented the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from expending any funds to incarcerate him during the applicable time period of the appropriations rider. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the proper vehicle for Sandusky’s claim was a motion filed in the sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. Sandusky appealed. After review, the Tenth Circuit concluded the district court was mistaken, and that a motion filed pursuant to section 2241 was the proper vehicle for the relief that Sandusky sought. Consequently, it reversed the district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings.