Department of Justice Once Again Proves Its Loyalty to the President, Not the Rule of Law

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on the recent news that the Justice Department will seek dismissal of charges against Michael Flynn. Sarat suggests that because the decision does not seem to advance the fair administration of justice in this case, the court should take the unusual step of refusing to grant the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss.

Read More

Sun Coast Resources, Inc. v. Conrad

Docket: 19-20058

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: James C. Ho

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Civil Procedure

The Fifth Circuit denied defendant's motion for sanctions against Sun Coast under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for pursuing a frivolous appeal. The court noted that the case for Rule 38 sanctions is strongest in matters involving malice, not incompetence. The court found that Sun Coast acted with incompetence, not malice, and therefore exercised its discretion in not granting defendant's request to impose sanctions under Rule 38. In this case, where Sun Coast failed to disclose that it cited Opalinski II rather than Opalinski I to the arbitrator, the court observed that the best that may be said for Sun Coast is that it badly misreads the record. Furthermore, where Sun Coast misunderstood the federal appellate process in its demand for oral argument, Sun Coast acted with incompetence, not malice.

Bradley v. Sheriff's Department St. Landry Parish

Docket: 18-30600

Opinion Date: May 7, 2020

Judge: Priscilla Richman Owen

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Sheriff's Department and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Louisiana state law, alleging wrongful arrest, wrongful detention, and malicious prosecution. The Fifth Circuit vacated in part the district court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, rendering judgment in favor of each defendant on each of the federal law claims. The court held that the magistrate judge erred in concluding that, if plaintiff's section 1983 claims were barred by limitations, subject matter jurisdiction over those claims was lacking. The court held that the section 1983 claims based on wrongful or false arrest and wrongful detention were time-barred, and the court declined to apply equitable tolling to the claims. The court also held that defendant inadequately briefed his malicious prosecution claim, and dismissal of the pendant state-law claims was within the district court's discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment to the extent it dismissed plaintiff's state law claims.