Federal Judiciary

Notable Petitions

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The “Notable Petitions” feature lists petitions that are likely to appear on our “Petitions to Watch” list when they are scheduled for consideration by the Justices.  ”Notable Petitions” are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case.  We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.

The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.

Title: Ryan v. Doody
Docket: 09-1443
Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit disregarded the AEDPA and this Court?s recent decision in Florida v. Powell when it held that the Miranda warnings given to Doody were inadequate; whether the Ninth Circuit disregarded the AEDPA in holding that Doody’s statements were involuntary.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner?s reply

Title: Camreta v. Greene
Docket: 09-1454; 09-1478
Issues: (1) Whether the traditional warrant/warrant exception requirements that apply to seizures of suspected criminals should apply to an interview of the child in light of reports of child abuse, or whether instead a balancing standard should apply; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit?s constitutional ruling is reviewable, notwithstanding that it ruled in the petitioner?s favor on qualified immunity grounds.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of states
• Amicus brief of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council
• Amicus brief of the California State Association of Counties et al.

Title: Fields v. Wilbur
Docket: 09-1458
Issues: (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) vests the  federal district courts with broad discretion to  request counsel for indigent civil litigants, or instead requires an indigent civil litigant seeking counsel to demonstrate the existence  of certain “exceptional circumstances” (including a likelihood of success on the merits) before the court can request counsel; and (2) whether prison officials? failure to respond to a properly filed inmate grievance exhausts the inmate?s administrative remedies for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, or whether the prisoner?s failure to secure a response to his grievance precludes a subsequent civil suit.

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

The following petition was filed by Howe & Russell and is listed without regard to its likelihood of being granted:

Title: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Docket: 09-1449; 10-36
Issue: From the petition: Whether the defendants waived their right to a defense of “reasonable factors other than age” provided in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(f), by refusing to press it at trial.  From the conditional cross-petition: Whether respondents satisfied their burden of persuasion on the “reasonable factors other than age” defense.

• Opinion below (2d Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (No. 09-1449)
• Conditional cross-petition for certiorari (No. 10-36)
• Brief in opposition (No. 09-1449)
• Amicus brief of AARP

[Howe & Russell represents the petitioners in No. 09-1449.]

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on August 20, 2010 (boomark / email).