Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Procedure; Rule 83(a)(1); 12(b)(6) (1)
- Civil procedure; service of process; removal; federal rules of civil procedure (1)
- Class actions; representative litigation; state-border argument (1)
- Criminal Procedure; Civil Procedure; Appellate Procedure; Prisoner Litigation; Prison Mailbox Rule; Mailbox Rule; Access to Justice (1)
- Law;Civil Procedure;Pro Se (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Prison Mailbox Rule: Can Represented Incarcerated Litigants Benefit?, Nico Corti
The Prison Mailbox Rule: Can Represented Incarcerated Litigants Benefit?, Nico Corti
Fordham Law Review
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court created the “Prison Mailbox Rule,” which assesses the timeliness of incarcerated litigants’ filings based on the day they hand them to prison authorities. The rule reduces the structural barriers to filing while imprisoned. Although Houston v. Lack highlighted the unique challenges that pro se incarcerated litigants face, the Prison Mailbox Rule’s subsequent federal codifications did not limit its benefits to pro se litigants, despite purportedly “reflecting” the Houston decision. Federal circuit courts of appeal today are split on whether represented people in prison can benefit from the Prison Mailbox Rule, leaving both litigants and …
Second Service: 28 U.S.C. § 1448 And State Court Service Of Process After Removal, Leigh Forsyth
Second Service: 28 U.S.C. § 1448 And State Court Service Of Process After Removal, Leigh Forsyth
Fordham Law Review
28 U.S.C. § 1448 governs the requirements of process after removal, providing that when defendants are not completely or perfectly served prior to removal, plaintiffs may complete such process or service, or new process may be issued in the same manner as in cases originally filed in the district court. There remains an open question as to whether state court service issued prior to removal, but served after removal, retains its efficacy in federal court under § 1448. This open question has led to divergent interpretations among district courts, with differing consequences. As of this Note’s publication, at least twenty-seven …
The Federal Rules Of Pro Se Procedure, Andrew Hammond
The Federal Rules Of Pro Se Procedure, Andrew Hammond
Fordham Law Review
In recent years, more than a quarter of all federal civil cases were filed by people without legal representation. Yet, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure refer to pro se litigants only once, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not considered in over a decade the question of what process is due to unrepresented civil litigants. Many judicial opinions in these cases go unpublished, and many are never appealed. Instead, the task of developing rules for pro se parties has taken place inside our federal district courts, whose piecemeal and largely unnoticed local rulemaking governs thousands of such litigants each …
Class Action Boundaries, Daniel Wilf-Townsend
Class Action Boundaries, Daniel Wilf-Townsend
Fordham Law Review
In recent years, some judges have begun doubting—and at times denying— their jurisdiction in class actions whose membership crosses state lines. This doubt has followed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s significant tightening of personal jurisdiction doctrine, which has led many to argue that courts no longer have jurisdiction over the claims of unnamed class members unless those claims have some independent relationship with the forum state. Such an argument raises foundational questions about due process and federalism, and has significant implications for the size, location, and feasibility of many class actions. This Article argues that what it terms the “state-border …
Reply Or Perish: The Federal Rule 83(A)(1) Problem With Local Rules Requiring Responses To 12(B)(6) Motions, Alexis Pawlowski
Reply Or Perish: The Federal Rule 83(A)(1) Problem With Local Rules Requiring Responses To 12(B)(6) Motions, Alexis Pawlowski
Fordham Law Review
The federal courts of appeals are divided over whether district courts have the legal authority to grant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss solely for lack of reply pursuant to local rules requiring responses to motions. Seven circuits hold that district courts must always consider the merits of an unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. However, the First and D.C. Circuits allow district courts to dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) motions for lack of response pursuant to local rules in certain circumstances. The majority view is that the use of these local rules in the First and D.C. Circuits …