BLUE

BLbryanlammon.bsky.socialSep 10, 2024 9:02pm

The #9thCir #3dCir #10thCir #AppellateSky finaldecisions.org/yet-another-...

Yet Another Split Rejection of Pure Bivens Appeals - Final Decisions

The Ninth Circuit joined the Third and Tenth Circuits in rejecting pure Bivens appeals. But like those courts, the Ninth’s decision was split.

Hhamlette.bsky.socialJun 26, 2024 8:33pm

Yes (presumably). But they initially 1) granted review "before judgment"--this case was never fully litigated in the 9thCir. 2) stayed the district court injunction so the Idaho law went into effect. Those are both undone now and we'll be back here after a 9thCir ruling.

BLbryanlammon.bsky.socialApr 11, 2024 3:25pm

The #9thCir cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...

Screenshot of a court opinion discussing "super snap removal."

BLbryanlammon.bsky.socialMar 28, 2024 2:24pm

Although the #9thCir cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/me...

To the extent that the County argues we lack jurisdiction to review the summary judgment order because the notice of appeal referenced only the order resolving the Rule 60(b) motion, we disagree. Fed. R. App. P. 3 specifies that a notice of appeal must “designate the judgment—or the appealable order—from which the appeal is taken.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). We have instructed that “a mistake in designating the judgment appealed from should not bar appeal as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can be fairly inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake.” ... Here, where the district court's denial of T.A.'s Rule 60(b) motion denied reconsideration of its summary judgment order, T.A.'s intent to appeal both the Rule 60(b) ruling and the underlying summary judgment ruling is “fairly inferred.” Id. And we conclude that there is no prejudice to the County that warrants limiting the notice of appeal to only the Rule 60(b) ruling.