Select Page

Civil Procedure I
University of Connecticut School of Law
Oquendo, Angel R.

Ø 1st phase: Pleadings (file complaint/answer)
Ø 2nd Phase: discovery (access to the files or individuals/info of the other side)
Ø 3rd pre-trial conference
Ø 4th trial
Ø 5th appeals
Ø Kafka
§ Inaccessibility of the law
Ø Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
§ P is US citizen, but labeled ‘enemy combatant” when found fighting with Taliban. He’s being held indefinitely, and father as next friend (party inaccessible) filed a writ of habeas corpus
§ H: Hamidi released under 14 point agreement (pg 6)
§ Plurality opinion-have concurring opinions on winning side
§ Habeas Corpus: you have the body” implicitly meaning you have to justify (the detention) that it is according to the law-a civil procedure and this civil rules apply (can be state or federal court) Habeas petition-equivalent of the complaint in habeas act
Here: 1)appoint counsel for Hamidi 2)order respondents to cease interrogation 3) declare he is being held in violation of 5th and 14th Ammendments (Due Process) 4) if facts disputed-schedule evidentiary hearing 5) order that Hamidi be released from his “unlawful custody”
§ Jurisdiction: have the legal authority
·         Cases for federal court: 1) Federal Question Jurisdiction 2) Diversity Jurisdiction (prtys from diff states)
§ Sua sponte- on its own initiative
§ En banc- on the bench, by the entire court
§ Interlocutory Appeal: an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded
§ Certiorari:to be known- SC wants to hear the case
§ Motion to Dismiss:request
–          Back in day- Common law courts awarded damages and equity courts made orders
Ø Advisory Committee –brings up motions sua sponte and these rules go to:
Ø  Standing Committee – can accept and reject, there comments then:
Ø Judicial Conference – on the rules then to:
Ø Supreme Court – (mystery?) Goes to
Ø Congress-Sits on it for 6 months (discussing) then becomes Rule
Ø Black and Douglas take a position that SC has no role in censorship
§ Problem of impartiality
·         SC is supposed to decide validity of rule. If it’s also involved in making the rule, how can court be impartial?
§ Rarely do justices disagree with judicial conference, so they’re not doing the role in the first place
§ Rules go beyond mere procedure and affect substance
§ Rules are law and are not adopted the way in which ordinary laws are passed
·         Congressional involvement is not the same
·         Congress can essentially ignore a rule for 6 months and it becomes law
Ø White
§ Judges aren’t experts in these fields/ far removed from civ pro-doesn’t categorically reject partic
Ø Scalia
§ Merits of brining suits-those who bring frivolous suits should have no safe-harbor, revisions (21 day sh, allowing judges to dispense w/ sanction) render the rule toothless
§ Makes objections on principle (lack of experience in specific area doesn’t matter)
Ø Rule 1 Purpose of FRCP is to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determinations of actions/proceedings [rule you can always fall back to] construe rules to your favor
Ø Rule 11- Atty sig- by signing claim pleading is brough in good faith- subject to sanctions if not
Ø Smith v. Barry
§ Smith is an inmate who filed under 42 USC 1983 D alleging cruel and unusual punishment for not being allowed a wheelchair, directed verdict to defs (judge determines no reasonably jury would find for pl)
§ Smith wants to appeal, but he appeals before he’s supposed to, so it’s invalid
·         Clerk sends out forms for informal brief (questionnaire) Smith responds w/in date- crt of Appeals dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction- (didn’t have power to take informal brief as notice of appeal)
·         Certiorari
§ HOLDING: SC takes a liberal construction and says you don’t have to file a formal notice as long as there is sufficient information out there that there is intent to appeal
·         Court doesn’t want to play the role of the gatekeeper
§ Rule 3
§ Rule 8 – General Rule of Pleading- way pleading sets forth claim needs (jurisdiction, grounds for claim, relief
§ Scalia’s concurrence
·         Brief is not a functional equivalent of an appeal
¨       Does not like the functional equivalent language
Ø Goldberg v. Kelly – 1970
§ Class Action Suit
§ Kelly was on NY welfare program was taken off of it, and says he was taken off without due process- claims the process NY afford welfare recipients is unconstitutional
§ The procedure is a social worker tells you there is a problem and you can challenge in writing, and someone who is higher up will make a decision- This procedure takes place ex post facto
§ Probs w/ written statement- can’t mold them as well, might not be able to read/write high level,
§ Bc Constitutional issue appeal from DC goes to SC
§ SC noted probable jurisdiction (haven’t fully reviewed but looks like have it so look at case)
¨       14th amendment imposes things on the states including Due Process and Equal Protection
§ SC says recipients need to be able to make proper arguments and face testifiers before termination of benefits because when deprived benefits, eligible recipients cannot afford basic necessities of life
§ Dissent BLACK
§ The court is transgressing to the legislative role
§ Says the govt promise to charity to people isn’t their property
§ If judges are allowed to rule anything unconstitutional that shocks their conscience we’ll have a law of men
§ If govt has to burden itself may not put these people on the welfare role in the first place (paying for the procedure will prob come from welfare money)-Might be a good idea for the hearing but its not constitutional, we as justices do not need to fabricate this but decide on issues of constitution

Ø Wheeler v. Montgomery 1970
§ Sister case regarding old age benefits
§ DC held that there was no violation, which had to be reversed in light of Goldberg decision
§ Dissent – should let legislation handle this
Ø Boddie v. Connecticut – 1971
§ Guy wants to get divorced but doesn’t have the money for the court fee, brings as class action
§ SC: Because of marriage’s social distinction, due process prohibits a state from denying the dissolution of marriage based on inability to pay
§ Fee is a reasonable way of allocating scarce resources, but this doesn’t outweigh need for due process in this case-Ct can charge-but people to be able to apply for a reprieve
§ Concurrence: this is a discrimination case (equal protection not so much Due Process), a discrimination case based on poverty instead of race or religion
§ Dissent: BRENNAN-Griffin applies to criminal matters, not civil
·         Black says other justices are stretching 14th amendment too far – it was meant for former slaves
·         Court shouldn’t legislate
Ø Lovely v. Eggleston 2005
§ Disabled persons are reassigned to three central hubs in NYC as opposed to their local offices class action- Segregation according to disability-seeking declaratory and injunctive relief-declaration that what is happening is wrong (decl) and it will be prevented from happening again (injunc)
§ Court has subject matter jurisdiction- authority over the subj matter/issue/or question (federal issue here)if reasonable-then legitimate-if legitimate then jurisdiction
·         1331: Federal Questions (ADA, Due Process Clause)
·         1343 (a)(3)&(4) (civil rights matter)
·         Disputes fall within the subject matter the court can decide
·         Also has supplemental jurisdiction (fed can look at state claims bc related)
§ Venue-once est jurisdiction, you have to figure out which of the courts within the federal system
§ Rule 23 -large # of people (aka “class”) find themselves in similar legal sit resulting from transaction or series of transaction that has created possible legal liability-Class members can opt out
§ Prayer for relief- what it is you want court to do
§ Need cert to proceed as class- asks crt to certify class Reasons 1) class is NUMEROUS 2) complaint is COMMON 3) complaint is TYPICAL 4) are ADEQUATELY REPRESENTING the class
§ Class action suit requires notification period (to others of the class)
§ Why class action: 1) risk of inconsistent adjudications-better to have all cases done together-(easier and so that one court that wants to say yes isn’t bound by another court that says no) 2) Def takes class generally-injunctions and declaratory relief on behalf of whole class
Ø Matthews v. Eldridge – 1976
§ Person was no longer disabled, so SSDI benefits were terminated
§ Commenced action challenging constitutional validity of admin procedure est by Secretary of Health, Edu and Welfare for assessing whether exists a continuing disability
§ Sought and obtained immediate reinstatement of benefits pending hearing on issue of disability
§ Filed motion for preliminary injunction (thinks c

Ø MLB v. S.L.J. – 1996
§ Father wants new mother to adopt children because mother did not maintain reasonable visitation
§ MLB isn’t allowed to appeal termination of parenthood decree because she can’t pay $2,352.36 preparation fee, even though she filed a timely appeal and paid $100 filing fee.
§ Mississippi SC denied her motion for in forma pauperis (in form of pauper-w/out funds to pursue normal cost of lawsuit)because it was not applicable to the appellate level
§ 2 procedures
·         Main procedure of custody
·         Question turns into one of whether she can proceed without paying fees
§ Issues of Due Process and Equal Protection
§ Court rules in favor of mother using rationality test for equal protection
§ Equal Protection is invoked when there is discrimination, i.e. if you are being treated differently in an unjustified way by the state.
§ Court uses the Matthews Test (Griffin?)
·         Private Interest, Risk of Error, Benefit of New Procedure, Governmental Interest
§ Loss of parental rights is enormous, risk of error is considerable, government’s interest is financial (considerable but not overwhelming.
§ Dissent suggests that some of the cases that have been decided should be overruled
·         She had a fair trial. Equal Protection should be for purposeful discrimination
§ If the state decides to allow this kind of procedure, it’s allowed but not constitutionally required
Ø In order to get into federal court, you need a federal question, and divided parties or $75,000 minimum
Ø Gilmore v. Utah – 1976
§ Gilmore’s son is on death row, and her son has waived his right to appeal, and mother appeals even though son doesn’t want her to (SC gets jurisdiction bc Const. issues lurking) violation of 8th amend (cruel punish)
§ In order to apply as next friend, you have to establish that P is unavailable or incompetent for some reason
§ For an individual claim, you need a personal interest in the claim (but Bessie says death penalty is issue that affects us all/society)
§ Standing: the ability to bring suit – parties that have standing are parties that can bring suit (see Lujan pg 6)
§ Holding is that since Gary was competent at the time he waived his right Bessie has not standing as next friend
§ Concurrence says Gary is available & competent, therefore next friend does not apply
§ Dissent focuses on whether statute itself is constitutional
·         They hate the death penalty
Ø Whitmore (Simmons) v. Arkansas – 1990
§ Simmons killed 2 people, then police found 14 people dead in his house. He was convicted and sentences to death, then he waived his right to a direct appeal. Whitmore (also on death row)petitioned for a stay, and he wants data from Simmons’s case to be available
§ For next friend, you must have someone who can’t appear on his/her own, have to have best interests of the person in mind, should have some significant relationship
§ Whitmore is trying to intervene under Rule 24
§ Rule 24- Right to intervene( 1)Intervention of Right/ Discretionary Intervention- right to intervene by law or 2) a group of individuals
·         Normally invoked when a case has already been filed and you have an interest in the case.
§ Court says Whitmore has no Article 3 standing and that his interest/relationship is too speculative
§ Dissent says that because of the nature of the death penalty (concerns everyone), you have to pay attention to prevent unjust execution
Ø Answer to a Complaint
§ Reaction to the allegations – P has to bear the burden of proof