tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post3889874168077525897..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Federal judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins enters the "cavalcade of corruption" that spews forth like raw sewage from the Northern District of Alabamalegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-30233713382467963752017-05-23T16:26:01.796-05:002017-05-23T16:26:01.796-05:00@3:44 --
This is the old "you have to be &#...@3:44 -- <br /><br />This is the old "you have to be 'brilliant" like a lawyer to understand the law" trick. I've seen it many times. Re: your points/questions:<br /><br />(1) I did cite such a case, Randall v. Scott. From that case: "We conclude that the district court erred in applying a heightened pleading standard to Randall's complaint. After Iqbal it is clear that there is no “heightened pleading standard” as it relates to cases governed by Rule 8(a)(2), including civil rights complaints." Next question.<br /><br />(2) From Johnson v. City of Shelby, again cited in the post for those who can read: "Federal pleading rules call for "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2); they do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See Advisory Committee Report of October 1955, reprinted in 12A C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, R. Marcus, and A. Steinman, Federal Practice 347*347 and Procedure, p. 644 (2014 ed.) (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "are designed to discourage battles over mere form of statement"); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, § 1215, p. 172 (3d ed. 2002) (Rule 8(a)(2) "indicates that a basic objective of the rules is to avoid civil cases turning on technicalities"). In particular, no heightened pleading rule requires plaintiffs seeking damages for violations of constitutional rights to invoke § 1983 expressly in order to state a claim." <br /><br />The last three sentences reject a heightened pleading standard. Twombly and Iqbal aren't on point in Johnson because the complaint met those standards. Petitioners only had to meet the Rule 8 standards for factual allegations: "Federal pleading rules call for "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2); they do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See Advisory Committee Report of October 1955, reprinted in 12A C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, R. Marcus, and A. Steinman, Federal Practice 347*347 and Procedure, p. 644 (2014 ed.) (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "are designed to discourage battles over mere form of statement"); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, § 1215, p. 172 (3d ed. 2002) (Rule 8(a)(2) "indicates that a basic objective of the rules is to avoid civil cases turning on technicalities"). In particular, no heightened pleading rule requires plaintiffs seeking damages for violations of constitutional rights to invoke § 1983 expressly in order to state a claim."<br /><br />(3) Re: Bank v. Pitt, you are flat-out lying, so you must be a lawyer. From Bank: "This is still true where the plaintiff does not seek leave until after the district court renders final judgment, see Thomas, 847 F.2d at 773 (after district court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, plaintiff filed motion for reconsideration that was denied; this court reversed and remanded, directing that plaintiff be permitted to amend his complaint), and even where the plaintiff never seeks leave to amend in the district court, but instead appeals the district court's dismissal, see Sarter v. Mays, 491 F.2d 675, 676 (5th Cir.1974) (complaint dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff appealed; court of appeals stated that "if the complaint does not adequately apprise the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff's claim, the court should allow the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to more plainly delineate the cause of action rather than dismiss the complaint.")<br /><br />No need to split hairs to see that you are wrong on every point. Congrats.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-29640345459593598802017-05-23T15:44:24.909-05:002017-05-23T15:44:24.909-05:00A "heightened pleading standard no longer exi...A "heightened pleading standard no longer exists in the Eleventh Circuit"?? Please cite a case where that has been established. Just because the same phrases and words are used in various opinions does not mean that they are being used in the same way in each case, which is what you seem to be asserting. Opinions from the highest courts in this country are distinguished from one another by splitting the tiniest of hairs. Your overly broad statements (where even "properly" applied, using the most generous standard of review) are the legal equivalent of using an ax to remove a pimple. I get that you're writing a blog post that will be read by laymen, but your writing is completely misleading to those laymen, which is a pretty serious problem in the instant situation for obvious reasons. <br /><br />The Johnson case you reference clearly states the Twombly and Iqbal cases aren't on point for that case because they concern factual allegations. Speaking of factual allegations, distinguishing those from legal conclusions is pretty important under both of those cases and your Complaint is way heavy on the legal conclusions and way light on the factual allegations....<br /><br /><br />Pro-se litigants are afforded the same right to amend their complaints post-judgment as those who are represented by attorneys. The Bank case you reference clearly states that the right to amend applies BEFORE the complaint is dismissed, which is not the case here and the cases you cite are not on point and do not apply. <br /><br />These judges don't have to be "nutty" or crooked to rule against you based on your pleadings. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-28553682916757444582017-05-22T21:23:56.270-05:002017-05-22T21:23:56.270-05:00I just have this feeling the judges in Alabama don...I just have this feeling the judges in Alabama don't like you. given judges appear to all belong to the same club, things aren't going to change much regardless of judge in Alabama. <br /><br />From her picture I would suggest she is simply the female version of all those other judges. <br /><br />e.a.f.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-16671654510969645122017-05-22T19:05:28.398-05:002017-05-22T19:05:28.398-05:00@5:36 --
I was using Google Scholar, and you mig...@5:36 -- <br /><br />I was using Google Scholar, and you might have a more comprehensive source, such as Westlaw. Also, not sure we're looking at same thing. I was looking at citations by 11th Cir. Court of Appeals itself. Perhaps you found citations throughout the circuit. I just did a followup search and found at least four additional citations from the appeals court itself, so that lifts my number to five, still way short of the number you found. <br /><br />I'm going to remove the reference from the post because it isn't correct -- the correct number, it appears, is between 5 and 27, depending on what you are looking at. It's also possible Google Scholar, while a very useful tool, is not reliable for that sort of research.<br /><br />Mainly, Jacobs does not involve pro se litigants so it's not an issue in our case -- and Hopkins got it wrong, either way.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-5502958665228789072017-05-22T17:36:55.714-05:002017-05-22T17:36:55.714-05:00Jacobs has been cited in at least 27 Eleventh Circ...Jacobs has been cited in at least 27 Eleventh Circuit cases....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-49235702061345612812017-05-22T16:06:50.031-05:002017-05-22T16:06:50.031-05:00@4:05 --
A commenter raised this issue, and I ho...@4:05 -- <br /><br />A commenter raised this issue, and I hope he/she responds. Here is my answer: Are the names Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby familiar to you?legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42439665533101276752017-05-22T16:05:28.965-05:002017-05-22T16:05:28.965-05:00Based on political connections to whom?Based on political connections to whom?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-76919009045269740922017-05-22T16:04:19.653-05:002017-05-22T16:04:19.653-05:00Proctor and Hopkins both bought those court seats....Proctor and Hopkins both bought those court seats. Qualifications had nothing to do with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-51556684549917903112017-05-22T15:40:21.802-05:002017-05-22T15:40:21.802-05:00@3:38 --
Exactly. That's why these cases -- ...@3:38 -- <br /><br />Exactly. That's why these cases -- whether they involve me or someone totally unrelated to me -- matter to everyone. Those courthouses are ours; we pay for them, and we should be outraged when judges use them in an abusive and unlawful fashion.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-10739886658089017372017-05-22T15:38:46.950-05:002017-05-22T15:38:46.950-05:00I'm not sure about the law and facts on your t...I'm not sure about the law and facts on your two cases, but I believe you have a strong track record of figuring this stuff out. You publish enough opinions and citations to prove, to me, that you do your homework and probably know what you're talking about.<br /><br />That said, it appears that neither of these cases should have gone to the appellate court. Even a citizen who knows nothing about you, or cares what happens to you, should be ticked off because it's a waste of our taxpayer dollars. If cases should be decided in trial courts, but go to 11th Circuit based on whims of corrupt judges, we all are losers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-65681435755906839402017-05-22T15:34:51.980-05:002017-05-22T15:34:51.980-05:00@3:32 --
I'm not sure. The rules probably sa...@3:32 -- <br /><br />I'm not sure. The rules probably say that the clerk is supposed to make a random selection. In reality, the judges probably decide, based on who is willing to bend the law to produce the desired result. In this case, it went from one Bush II appointee (Proctor) to another (Hopkins). I don't think that's a coincidence.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-69976820996491635742017-05-22T15:32:45.497-05:002017-05-22T15:32:45.497-05:00When a judge recuses, who determines where the cas...When a judge recuses, who determines where the case goes next?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-33468221708160608772017-05-22T15:30:18.592-05:002017-05-22T15:30:18.592-05:00@3:29 --
Bingo! You nailed it. I've got a po...@3:29 -- <br /><br />Bingo! You nailed it. I've got a post coming soon on that subject.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-23806626619017214342017-05-22T15:29:27.913-05:002017-05-22T15:29:27.913-05:00Something tells me that federal judges in Alabama ...Something tells me that federal judges in Alabama are based on political connections and not on qualifications.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com