RE: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
Her claim, which was rejected by the district court and is currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit, remains to be decided. -- Howard Friedman From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:38 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case Im confused by this ruling. They denied the little sister's motion to intervene, but also upheld the dismissal on grounds of mootness and voided the whole case. Does that mean the case just goes away now or do the plaintiffs have some recourse to start over at the district court? Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:24 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case Today, in a procedural move that only lawyers could love, the US Supreme Court granted cert and then ordered the 9th Circuit to dismiss as moot a case challenging school rules on student anti-gay religious expression. However parallel claims by the student's sister are still in the lower courts. For details of the complex procedural posture of the case and its lower court history, see this Religion Clause blog posting on Tyler v. Poway School District: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-supreme-court-dismisses-sc hool-t.html Howard Friedman ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
In a message dated 3/5/07 3:38:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm confused by this ruling. The Supreme Court's order only instructs the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal as moot. (Emphasis added.)The appeal was apparently only from the district court’s denial of petitioner’s (plaintiff's) motion for a preliminary injunction. The request for an injunction is moot because the plaintiff graduated. But Prof. Friedman's blog says that the compliant also sought damages; that claim could not be rendered moot by the plaintiff's graduation and presumably remains pending in the district court, where it will still require a decision on the merits, unless the case settles. What confuses me, though, is that the Supreme Court's order states that The district court, however, has now entered final judgment dismissing petitioner’ s claims for injunctive relief as moot. Ordinarily, a district court could not enter a final judgment unless it dispopsed of all claims against all parties. I wonder if the district court here entered a partial final judgment under the special procedure of Rule 54(b), or if someone (the district judge, the Supreme Court, Prof. Friedman, me) is just confused? Art Spitzer Washington DC ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
The district court's opinion that found the request for an injunction and declaratory relief to be moot also dismissed the damage claim on the merits. Here is the court's language: This Court agrees with plaintiffs' assessment. Accordingly, this Court finds plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are now moot. This Court notes that it previously dismissed plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims against all defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against the individual defendants in their personal capacities on qualified immunity grounds That ruling was not disturbed by the Ninth Circuit Although plaintiffs respectfully disagree with this Court's qualified immunity ruling, plaintiffs indicate the inclusion of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims in the second amended complaint was done to avoid waiving the claims on appeal This Court reaffirms its prior dismissal of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims. Accordingly, because plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims have been dismissed and his injunctive and declaratory relief claims are moot, all of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's claims are no longer viable. Therefore, Tyler Chase Harper is DISMISSED as a plaintiff in this case. Here is a link to the district court's opinion: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/images/070124tshirt.pdf Howard Friedman From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 4:03 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case In a message dated 3/5/07 3:38:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm confused by this ruling. The Supreme Court's order only instructs the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal as moot. (Emphasis added.) The appeal was apparently only from the district court's denial of petitioner's (plaintiff's) motion for a preliminary injunction. The request for an injunction is moot because the plaintiff graduated. But Prof. Friedman's blog says that the compliant also sought damages; that claim could not be rendered moot by the plaintiff's graduation and presumably remains pending in the district court, where it will still require a decision on the merits, unless the case settles. What confuses me, though, is that the Supreme Court's order states that The district court, however, has now entered final judgment dismissing petitioner's claims for injunctive relief as moot. Ordinarily, a district court could not enter a final judgment unless it dispopsed of all claims against all parties. I wonder if the district court here entered a partial final judgment under the special procedure of Rule 54(b), or if someone (the district judge, the Supreme Court, Prof. Friedman, me) is just confused? Art Spitzer Washington DC ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
Clearing up my own confusion, I see that Prof. Friedman's blog links to the January 24 decision of the district court, which explains: This Court notes that it previously dismissed plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper’s damages claims against all defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against the individual defendants in their personal capacities on qualified immunity grounds. See Harper I, 345 F.Supp.2d at 1115-1119. That ruling was not disturbed by the Ninth Circuit. See Harper II. 445 F.3d at 1192. Although plaintiffs “ respectfully disagree” with this Court’s qualified immunity ruling, plaintiffs indicate the inclusion of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper’s damages claims in the second amended complaint was done to avoid waiving the claims on appeal. Pltffs’ Add. Br. at 1-2. This Court reaffirms its prior dismissal of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper’s damages claims. (Opinion at 4-5.) So there was indeed a final judgment as to call claims. Prof. Friedman's blog reports that On Feb. 7, Alliance Defense Fund filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Tyler and Kelsie Harper. So that appeal is presumably pending in the 9th Circuit and not affected by today's Supreme Court action. Art Spitzer ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case
Im confused by this ruling. They denied the little sister's motion to intervene, but also upheld the dismissal on grounds of mootness and voided the whole case. Does that mean the case just goes away now or do the plaintiffs have some recourse to start over at the district court? Ed Brayton -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Friedman, Howard M. Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 3:24 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case Today, in a procedural move that only lawyers could love, the US Supreme Court granted cert and then ordered the 9th Circuit to dismiss as moot a case challenging school rules on student anti-gay religious expression. However parallel claims by the student's sister are still in the lower courts. For details of the complex procedural posture of the case and its lower court history, see this Religion Clause blog posting on Tyler v. Poway School District: http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/03/us-supreme-court-dismisses-sc hool-t.html Howard Friedman ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
