Harrius Johnson v. Miami-Dade County, Florida

Whether U.S. Const, art. Ill, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, U.S. Const, amend. XIV and U.S. Const, amend. V due Process Clauses, and U.S. Const, amend. VII preservation clause permit a federal appellate court to affirm summary judgment on an undeveloped record after a district court’s four-year-and-eightmonth post-remand freeze on all hearings, discovery, and case management, while leaving unresolved preserved disputes over governmental authority, record authenticity, mandatory investigation safeguards, disavowed authorship, and material jury inferences concerning a public employee’s protected property interest.

Whether Article III courts may apply McDonnell Douglas at summary judgment as a rigid evidentiary filter that weighs, divides, and rejects preserved pretext and circumstantial evidence in isolation, rather than reviewing the whole record, drawing reasonable inferences for the nonmovant, and reserving disputed inferences for the jury.

Whether Article III permits a federal court to rely on the law-of-the-case doctrine to avoid correcting preserved Fifth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 violations where exceptions were preserved, material facts remained for a jury, the district court imposed a post-remand discovery freeze and violated the mandate rule, and the record supported correction despite an admitted incomplete review by the Eleventh Circuit which affirmed judgment.