Utah Law Developments
| Publication year | 2014 |
| Pages | 30 |
November, 2014
Appellate Highlights
Rodney R. Parker & Julianne P. Blanch, J.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, and Utah Court of Appeals
Al-Turki v. Robinson 762 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2014)
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to prison officials in this Eighth Amendment case brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where a prisoner with kidney stones alleged that he was not given prompt medical treatment and that his requests for medical attention were ignored. The court held that the prisoner's several hours of untreated severe pain satisfied the objective element of the "deliberate indifference" test. It further held that the law was clearly established that a deliberate indifference claim arises when medical professionals deny care even though they are presented with recognizable symptoms that potentially create a medical emergency.
Doe v. Jones, 762 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2014)
As a matter of first impression, the Tenth Circuit held that the stay and abeyance of a federal habeas petition, as approved in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), applies to mixed as well as unmixed petitions. However, because the petitioner's claim of actual innocence would be a basis for equitable tolling of the federal limitations period, he was unable to establish the "good cause" required under Rhines. The court accordingly affirmed the district court's denial of the stay and its dismissal of the petitioner's habeas petition.
Fisher v. Raemisch, 762 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2014)
The Tenth Circuit held that the one-year statute of limitations for habeas petitions was tolled during the pendency of the petitioner's state court application for post-conviction relief, even though it took the state court over eight years to resolve the petition. The fact that the petition could have been, but was not, dismissed on the ground of abandonment did not mean that the matter was not still pending for tolling purposes.
Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 744 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014), reh'g en banc denied, 759 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. July 22, 2014)
" [M] embers of a state legislature may have standing to sue in order to vindicate the 'plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.'" Id. at 1163 (citation omitted). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislator-plaintiffs have Article 111 standing to bring suit to enjoin enforcement of an act that could violate the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution, withstanding the political question doctrine and challenges to prudential standing. Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires referendum approval of most tax increases. State legislators challenged the constitutionality of TABOR. The court only considered the issues of standing and the political question doctrine, avoiding the merits of the case. Article HI standing requires that the plaintiff demonstrate (1) a concrete injury, (2) causation, and (3) redressability The court found that "nullifying a legislator's vote or depriving a legislator of an opportunity to vote is an injury in fact," id. at 1166 (citation omitted), that the enforcement of the act is sufficient causation, and that barring enforcement is sufficient redressability. The court distinguished TABOR from situations where a legislator might have been " [s]eeking to obtain a result in a courtroom which he failed to gain in the halls of the legislature." Id. at 1167 (citation omitted).
Ralphs v. McClellan 2014 UT 36 (Aug. 29, 2014)
The petitioner sought to challenge a previous justice court lewdness conviction when that conviction led to subsequent lewdness charges being charged as felonies. The petitioner argued that he had been deprived of his right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial