Sixth Circuit

Garrison v. Mich. Dept. of Corrections — Prisoner Freedom of Religion Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Well, not exactly. The petitioner is a prisoner, a practioner of something called the “Native American Traditional Ways religion,” but the Sixth Circuit’s opinion is mostly about whether or not the petitioner’s claim should be dismissed for fraud.

An excerpt:

Michael Garrison, Eric Boylan, and Robert Walker appeal from an order dismissing their civil rights complaint. Garrison and four other Michigan prisoners filed a joint pro se action in district court alleging that prison officials had placed unnecessary restrictions on the prisoners’ religious practice in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1-cc-5. The prisoners requested, and were denied, appointed counsel. The district court later discovered that Garrison was filing papers that had been previously signed in blank by his co-plaintiffs. The co-plaintiffs left the signed, blank papers for Garrison to use in conducting the litigation. The district court regarded the use of papers signed in blank as fraud. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and applied various sanctions. Because counsel will only be appointed in a civil case in exceptional circumstances, the district court acted within its discretion in denying appointment of counsel. The district court also acted within its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice due to the improper nature of some of the filings. However, we vacate the dismissal order to the extent that it applies further sanctions because the record does not sufficiently indicate that Garrison and his co-plaintiffs acted in bad faith.

Keweenaw Bay Challenge to State Sales and Use Taxes Reaches Sixth Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the appellate materials:

KBIC Opening Brief

Michigan Appellee Brief

KBIC Reply Brief

And here is our earlier posting on the district court case, along with all of the extensive exhibits, etc.

Sixth Circuit to Decide Tribal Enterprise Immunity Case — UPDATED!

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Memphis Biofuels v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, being appealed to the Sixth Circuit from the Western District of Tennessee. The case involves the assertion by CNI, a Section 17 corporation, that it is entitled to sovereign immunity, and that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this contract claim against it. The lower court granted CNI’s motion to dismiss and Memphis Biofuels has appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Here are the lower court materials:

memphis-biofuels-complaint-and-exhibits

cni-motion-to-dismiss-and-exhibits

memphis-biofuels-response-to-motion-to-dismiss

cni-reply-motion-to-dismiss

cni-supplemental-memorandum

memphis-biofuels-supplemental-memorandum

memphis-biofuels-dct-order

Sixth Circuit materials:

Continue reading →

Geoffrey Feiger Loses Free Speech Claim in Sixth Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From How Appealing:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has today issued its ruling in Geoffrey Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court: Today’s ruling begins:

After a panel of judges on the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a $15 million judgment initially entered in favor of his client, and while the case was pending before the court, attorney Geoffrey Nels Fieger made vulgar comments about the judges on a radio show he hosted.

The majority on a divided three-judge panel reached the following holding:

We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We hold that Fieger and Steinberg lack standing because they have failed to demonstrate actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm based on a single, stipulated reprimand; they have not articulated, with any degree of specificity, their intended speech and conduct; and they have not sufficiently established a threat of future sanction under the narrow construction of the challenged provisions applied by the Michigan Supreme Court. For these same reasons, we also hold that the district court abused its discretion in entering declaratory relief.

Continue reading →

Ottawa Tribe Reply Brief in Ottawa Tribe v. Ohio (CA6)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief, where the tribe responds to the state’s laches defense for the first time on appeal — reply-brief-of-appellant-ottawa-tribe-of-oklahoma

The other materials in this important case are here. A link to the district court opinion in the Saginaw Chippewa reservation borders case referenced in the reply brief is here.

NYTs on Bush v. Gore

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, issued eight years ago this month, was widely understood to work like that tape recorder in “Mission: Impossible.” It was meant to produce a president and then self-destruct.

“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances,” the majority famously said, “for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

That sentence, translated from high legal jargon into English, was generally taken to mean this: The decision was a ticket for one ride only. It was not a precedent. It was a ruling, yes, but it was not law.

But now, as the petitioner leaves the national stage, Bush v. Gore is turning out to have lasting value after all. “You’re starting to see courts invoke it,” said Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York University, “and you’re starting to see briefs cite it.”

Divorced from its earlier context, the growing point of the case is to impose order on often chaotic election processes in the states.

“Bush v. Gore introduced an important idea,” Professor Issacharoff said. “It is that the political process has rules, the rules have to be fairly applied and what those rules need to be known up front.”

Bush v. Gore was, for instance, unapologetically at the heart of a unanimous decision last month from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, allowing a comprehensive challenge to Ohio voting systems to move forward. The three-judge panel acknowledged the Supreme Court’s admonition about the limited precedential value of Bush v. Gore. Nonetheless, the panel said, “we find it relevant here.”

Continue reading →

WaPo Article on the Sixth Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From WaPo (courtesy of Con Law Prof Blog):

CINCINNATI — In June 2005, two federal appellate judges here ordered Joseph Arnold released from a 21-year prison sentence after ruling that there was no credible evidence he had threatened to shoot his girlfriend’s daughter with a pistol.

But Arnold’s relief was fleeting. Prosecutors appealed to all of the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. And the full court, dominated by appointees of President Bush and other Republican presidents, reversed the initial appellate ruling, saying the evidence presented by prosecutors was sufficient to merit Arnold’s conviction.

Other criminal defendants, including some on death row, remain in federal prisons for the same reason: After initial appellate verdicts that their convictions or sentences were unjust, the last word came from Bush’s judicial picks on the 6th Circuit. Acting in cooperation with other Republican appointees on the court, they have repeatedly organized full-court rehearings to overturn rulings by panels dominated by Democratic appointees.

Continue reading →

Ottawa Tribe v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources — Sixth Circuit Briefing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Please see our previous post on this case here (it links to the briefs and other materials in the lower court).

Here is the Ottawa Tribe’s opening brief: appellant-brief

And here is the amicus brief signed by the National Congress of American Indians and several Michigan tribes on the laches question: brief-amici-curiae

And now the State of Ohio’s brief: brief-of-defendant-appellee-director-of-ohio-dept-of-natural

Ottawa Tribe v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources — Sixth Circuit Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Please see our previous post on this case here (it links to the briefs and other materials in the lower court).

Here is the Ottawa Tribe’s opening brief: appellant-brief

And here is the amicus brief signed by the National Congress of American Indians and several Michigan tribes on the laches question: brief-amici-curiae

US v. Gabrion — Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Manistee National Forest

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in US v. Gabrion. It raises an interesting question whether there is federal criminal jurisdiction in national forests. The court, 2-1, found that the US does have criminal jurisdiction over national forest lands, in this case, the Manistee National Forest. Judge Moore’s concurring opinion delved into federal Indian law in response to the appellant’s claim that state and federal concurrent jurisdiction over national forest lands was a violation of equal protection (it isn’t — just ask an Indian):

Continue reading →