The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
D.C. Circuit Reverses District Court for the Third Time in a Single Case
Somehow a district court has made erroneous rulings three times in one case, and still has not reached the merits.
Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided Maldonado v. District of Columbia for the third time. As on the prior two occasions, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the district court improperly dismissed the case.
Here's Judge Tatel's quick summary:
More than a decade ago, Medicaid recipients filed this suit alleging that in violation of the Due Process Clause, the District of Columbia is failing to provide them notice and an opportunity to be heard when denying them prescription coverage. The case is now before us for the third time. In the first two appeals, we reversed the district court's dismissals for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim, respectively. On remand, the district court once more dismissed the case, this time for mootness. For the reasons set forth below, we again reverse and remand with instructions to proceed expeditiously with discovery and allow plaintiffs to make their case.
Perhaps the third time will be the charm and the plaintiffs will finally have the opportunity to have their claims heard.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The District Court will protect D.C. from having their malfeasance displayed for as long as it can.
Mootness? Did the poor saps get old and die?
No; the district court found that the district had changed its policy to give the plaintiffs the relief they had sought.
The DC Circuit should have the case reassigned. The District Court judge is clearly biased in favor of District government and will keep finding reasons to dump the case.
Exactly. Appellate courts seem to be overly disinclined to reassign cases.
"For the reasons set forth below, we again reverse and remand with instructions to proceed expeditiously with discovery and allow plaintiffs to make their case."
I've gotten language like that from the appellate court before. They think it helps, but it really doesn't. What am I supposed to do with that, file a writ of mandamus if discovery isn't expeditious?
Obama judge.
So Obama was the president in 2002?
I assume Ben's talking about the district court judge, Beryl A. Howell...who is an Obama appointed judge.
Beryl Howell is indeed an Obama appointed judge, and she does sit on the district court, but she has nothing to do with this case, so why would you "assume" any such thing?
Knee jerk tool.
Yes, we know you are.
I'm not the one who is eagerly looking up every judge mentioned in a VC post to comment who nominated them, as though that is determinative of every minor legal finding.
Sorry, Ben. It's a Bush judge. Others have done the work to relieve you of your ignorance.
Or maybe 1994, when Judge Tatel went onto the D.C. Circuit?
So three strikes?
Where was the part where the judge is fired, disbarred, and fined?
It seemed unusual that this recounting of reversal doesn't link to the decision, let alone identify the oft-reversed judge(s).
The corrected judge, at least with respect to the most recent reversal, appears to be Richard Leon, a Bush nominee, lifelong Republican, and Federalist Societeer with a history of partisan political activity.
In this appeal plaintiffs also asked for the case to be reassigned, and got this answer:
We can always hope, but the suit was filed 13 years ago and is still pending discovery so Judge Leon has shown a stubborn ability to disappoint any expectation of celerity.
In other regulatory fields (medical regulatory) there would have been a phone call to head off any future shenanigans.
Does that happen with judges?