full post test

Sunday, May 17, 2009

The Case: Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004)

In a "backwards looking" denial of access to the court action, the complaint must "identify a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought."
Background: Allison Jennings, the plaintiff, a Oklahoma State University (OSU) student, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights lawsuit against four OSU football players accused of raping her, and against members of the Stillwater Oklahoma Police Department for failing to collect material evidence, failing to challenge the football players' account of the events, discouraging Plaintiff from prosecuting the football players in violation of state and federal law, and finally, causing the physical evidence from the alleged rape to be destroyed, making it difficult to maintain a civil action against the football players.

The lawsuits were severed, and proceed against each group of defendants under different legal theories.

The suit against the football players and OSU had been settled out of court, with a stipulation that the settlement amount remains confidential.

The suit against detective Buzzard proceeded to trial where the district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as to the defendants on all claims. The Circuit Court affirmed.



On appeal, the Jennings court treated the issue as a "backwards looking" denial of access to the court, and found that the underlying complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements for backward looking claims established in Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403.

More specifically, according to Harbury, a backwards looking denial of access to the court complaint must "identify a remedy that may be awarded as recompense but not otherwise available in some suit that may yet be brought." Id at 415.

In Jennings, the only remedy that could conceivably be awarded to Plaintiff as a result of the alleged police misconduct would be damages for the loss of her civil tort claim against the assailants; but this is precisely the same element of damage she sought and obtained in her suit against the four football players and OSU.

In other words, Plaintiff pursued her claims and reached a monetary settlement with the four football players and OSU. She thus had access to the courts, and obtained a remedy.

The basis for affirming summary judgment: The plaintiff did not specifically alleged, or presented evidence, that the settlement amount was inadequate on account of the government's actions so as to deny her meaningful relief.

While several points in her appellate briefs did allude to such a claim. (References omitted), her complaint contains no such allegation, and the record contains no evidence on the point. And, in light of the confidentiality of Plaintiff's settlement, there is no way such a claim could be evaluated.


CASES CITED BY THE JENNINGS COURT RE: DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURT

* Wilson v. Meeks, (10th Cir.1995)
* Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, 28 F.3d 425, 430 (5th Cir.1994)
* Bell v. Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1261 (7th Cir.1984)
* Ryland v. Shapiro, 708 F.2d 967, 971-73 (5th Cir.1983)
* Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002)

NOTE: The Court cites Wilson v. Meeks, suggesting that denial of access to the court claims in the 10th Cir. does not include interference with discovery, but is limited to actions that interfere with the filing of the complaint. This is the case in the 5th Circuit (Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, citing Ryland v. Shapiro)

Parallel Case: Broudy, Alice P. vs. Mather, Susan H. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Cir. - August 23, 2006, Federal Circuits, Docket 05-5085:

Read more...

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP