Paul W. Mollica Federal Courts Blog

Blog Authors

Latest from Paul W. Mollica Federal Courts Blog

In United States v. Simmons, No. 22-12148 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit affirms a drug and firearm possession conviction, holding that the district court did not err by preventing the defense lawyer from showing excerpts from a video exhibit in closing arguments that were not previously shown to the jury.

“During

In Gelin v. Baltimore Cnty., No. 23-1541 (4th Cir. Dec. 4, 2024), the Fourth Circuit holds an appeal before it “in abeyance” until the district court decides a pending Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. The panel has occasion to decide that Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) – which provides that certain motions in

In R.A. v. McClenahan, No. 24-1008 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2024), the Fourth Circuit reverses a district court’s action granting leave to the plaintiff to amend their complaint after remand from the first appeal, despite that a panelist on the first appeal (who has since taken senior status) expressly suggested that course in a

Last week, in United States v. King Cnty., No. 23-35362 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2024) and State of Texas v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 23-50869 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2024), the Fifth and Ninth Circuits follow different paths on the scope of intergovernmental immunity to insulate federal agency actions to enforce federal

In Folse v. Hoffman, No. 23-1709 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024), the Fourth Circuit finds no error in the district court striking a complaint and dismissing an action, where the pro se plaintiff attempted to file the action “electronically,” by way of a fax machine.

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B)(i) says pro se

While monetary loss is almost always deemed sufficient to trigger Article III standing, in Jones v. Reeves, No. 24-60371 (5th Cir. Nov. 19, 2024), a Fifth Circuit panel dismisses an eight-year old case (on its fourth appeal) on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to protect per diem payments they recieved

In We the Patriots, et al. v. Grisham, No. 23-2066 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024), the Tenth Circuit dismisses an appeal of the denial of preliminary injunction where, in a different case in the same district, another judge granted the same relief. This is important for cases governed by “prevailing party” fee-shifting statutes, because

In New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central Sch. Dist., No. 22-2178 (2d Cir. Oct. 15, 2024), the Second Circuit reverses a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) judgment on the pleadings, holding that the State of New York pled sufficient grounds for parens patriae standing without alleging a policy-or-practice violation against a target population of state