Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Huong L. Tran, et al. v. City of Holmes Beach, Florida, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 19-13470 · judgment July 17, 2020
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
“ . . . Mindful of. . . Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (“The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of.”)” Bickerstaff Clay Prod. v. Harris Cty., 89 F.3d 1481, 1487 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1996). See also Magluta, 256 F.3d 1282,1284-85 (11th Cir. 2001) (refusing to address . . . serious constitutional issues on the basis of a . . . ‘shot gun’ pleading. . . .) Gutierrez v. I.N.S., 745 F.2d 548,550 (9th Cir. 1984). The first broad question is whether strict shotgun pleading rules, a category of heightened standard, is permissible as used (excessively) in the Eleventh Cir cuit to dispose of complaints and deprive litigants equal access to federal courts to seek equal justice, relief and secure their constitutional rights on the merits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment? Alternatively, the specific subsidiary questions are: a) Whether this Court would reconsider the Ash wander rule and define the scope of “some other ground” language so that an Article III court could review a seri ous constitutional question or claim and not to dismiss and deny justice based solely on pleading technicality? b) Whether the Courts should have reviewed and provided specific guidance for each claim in pro se Pe titioners’ complaint to help narrow the issues and cor rect the deficiencies with limited discovery and a hearing instead of dismissing with prejudice the entire pleading?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Huong L. Tran
For respondent
Jay Daigneault
Trask Daigneault, LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- May 03 2021Petition DENIED.
- Apr 14 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
- Apr 09 2021Reply of petitioners Huong L. Tran, et al. filed.
- Mar 26 2021Brief of respondent City of Holmes Beach, Florida in opposition filed.
- Mar 25 2021Brief of respondents Florida Department of Environmental Protection and its Officials in opposition filed. (04/06/21)
- Mar 16 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 26, 2021, for all respondents.
- Mar 15 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 19, 2021 to March 26, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 26 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 5, 2021 to March 19, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Feb 26 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 19, 2021, for all respondents.
- Feb 01 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 5, 2021.
- Jan 29 2021Motion of respondent City of Holmes Beach, Florida to extend the time to file a response from February 3, 2021 to March 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 28 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 5, 2021.
- Jan 27 2021Motion of respondents Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al. to extend the time to file a response from February 3, 2021 to March 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 22 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 3, 2021)