DOCSLIB.ORG

Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, Mschlan@Umich.Edu University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1296 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Courts Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Schlanger, Margo. "Inmate Litigation." Harv. L. Rev. 116, no. 6 (2003): 1555-706. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 116 APRIL 2003 NUMBER 6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW I ARTICLE INMATE LITIGATION Margo Schlanger TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION r557 I. INMATE LITIGATION TRENDS r565 A. The Varied Subject Matter ofInmate Litigation r570 B. Inmate Litigation Rates r575 C. Inmate Filing Rates over Time: The "Deluge" r578 D. OfBabies and Bath Water: The Processing ofInmate Cases r587 II. OUTCOMES IN INMATE CASES (PRIOR TO THE PLRA) r590 A. Outcomes: The Data r593 B. Outcomes: Explanations r605 1. Limited Legal Rights/Exacting Decision Standard , r605 2. Easy Access to Courts r 607 3. The Absence of Counsel r609 4· Obstacles to Settlement. r6 r4 (a) The Impact of the Low Quality of the Docket r6r4 (b) Asymmetric Information r6r6 (c) Low Litigation Costs r6r7 (d) Perceived High External Settlement Costs r6r7 (e) Corrections Culture r620 5. Trial Win Rates r62r 6. Low Damage Awards r622 C. Conclusion r626 III. SEA CHANGE: THE PLRA (AND OTHER 1996 CHANGES) r627 A. Exhaustion r627 B. Filing Fees r628 C. Costs r629 D. Judicial Screening r629 E. No Obligation To Respond r630 F. Telephonic Hearings r630 1555 HeinOnline -- 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1555 2002-2003 1556 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. 116:1555 G. Limitation on Damages 1630 H. Diversion ofDamages 1631 I. Limitation on Attorneys' Fees 1631 J. Coverage 1632 K. Other Legal Changes Concurrent with the PLRA 1632 IV. LITIGATION EFFECTS OF THE PLRA 1633 A. The Shrinking Inmate Docket.. 1634 1. State Court 1634 2. Habeas 1637 3. Jail and Prison Filings 1641 4. The Impact on Courts of Filing Declines 1642 B. Plaintiffs' Declining Success 1644 1. The Statute and Its Expected Effects 1645 (a) Imposition of a Filing Fee, Payable over Time, for All Civil Actions by Inmates 1645 (b) The Frequent Filer Provisions 1648 (c) Exhaustion 1649 (d) Limitations on Attorneys' Fees 1654 (e) Coverage 1657 (f) Summary of Expected Outcome Effects 1657 2. Observed Trends 1658 V. BROADENING THE FIELD OF VIEW 1664 A. Minimizing Litigation's Burden 1668 B. Reducing Liability Exposure: Overdeterrence, Antideterrence, Underdeterrence 1672 1. Overdeterrence 1672 2. Antideterrence 1677 3. Deterrence/Underdeterrence 1686 C. Operational Effects ofthe PLRA 1690 VI. CONCLUSION 1692 DATA ApPENDIX 1698 A. Putting Together the Dataset 1698 B. Accuracy ofthe Data 1699 1. Nature of Suit Codes 1699 2. Subsequent Activity 1700 3. Federal vs. Nonfederal Inmates 1700 4. "Judgment for" 17°2 5. Damages 1702 6. Class Actions 17°3 C. Grouping Case Categories 17°4 HeinOnline -- 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1556 2002-2003 INMATE LITIGATION Margo Schlanger· In 1995, prison and jail inmates brought about 40,000 new lawsuits in federal court ­ nearly a fifth of the federal civil docket. Court records evidence a success rate for inmate plaintiffs under fifteen percent. These statistics highlight two qualities long associated with the inmate docket: its volume and the low rate of plaintiffs' success. Then, in 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which dramatically altered the litigation landscape, restricting inmates' access to federal court in a variety of ways. This Article examines inmate litigation before and after the PLRA. Looking first at the litigation process itself, it brings together prior research, the results of new quantitative analysis of a comprehensive database offederal district court cases, and interviews and other qualitative inquiry. The Article canvasses filing trends, subject matter, and settled and litigated outcomes, exploring what is happening in each of these areas and why. Then it uses a variety of analytic tools to uncover and assess the PLRA's impact. Most obviously, the PLRA has shrunk the number of new federal filings by inmates by over forty percent, notwithstanding a large increase in the affected incarcerated population. Simultaneously, the statute seems to be making even constitutionally meritorious cases harder both to bring and to win. Finally, the Article looks beyond federal courthouses to the ways litigation affects jail and prison operations. Specifically, it explores agencies' efforts to respond efficiently to the high-volume, low­ probability docket and to reduce their liability exposure, and offers some tentative observations about the PLRA's likely impact on these efforts. The Article suggests in conclusion that use of the PLRA as a model for broader litigation reforms should proceed with enormous caution given the statute's problematic effects. INTRODUCTION n any given day there are over two million people in jail or prison Oin the United States, a population that has nearly quadrupled since 1980. 1 Driven at least in large part by the steep increase in the number of jail and prison inmates, and notwithstanding the nearly complete disappearance of what used to be an active and influential • Assistant Professor, Harvard Law School ([email protected]). Thanks to Harvard Law School, Dean Robert Clark, the Harvard University Center for Ethics and the Professions, and the Harvard University Milton Fund for time and resources to complete this project. And thanks to Elizabeth Alexander, Ted Eisenberg, Dick Fallon, Jerry Frug, Phil Heymann, Howell Jackson, Christine Jolls, Steve Martin, Dan Meltzer, Martha Minow, David Shapiro, Bill Stuntz, Guhan Subramanian, Michael Tonry, Kip Viscusi, Elizabeth Warren, Lucie White, David Wil­ kins, participants in the 2002 Law & Society Conference, and (especially and as always) Sam Bagenstos for helpful comments. Mike Bloch, Lara Garner, Beth Mellen Harrison, and H.L. Rogers provided excellent research assistance, as did Josh Kantor of the Harvard Law School li­ brary reference department. Finally, thanks to the dozens of people, listed below in note 21, who shared their time and thoughts with me in extensive interviews as I prepared to write this Article. 1 See infra Table I.A. 1557 HeinOnline -- 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1557 2002-2003 1558 HARVARD LAW REVIEW [Vol. II6:1555 prisoners' rights movement,z the amount of civil litigation brought by inmates in federal court increased steadily during the 1980s, and more steeply in the early 1990S. In 1995, inmates filed nearly 40,000 new 3 federal civil lawsuits - nineteen percent of the federal civil docket.4 About fifteen percent of the federal civil trials held that year were in inmate civil rights cases.S But in the mid-1990S, the state officials who were the most fre­ quent targets of the growing inmate docket were finally able to capi­ talize on the rightward move in American politics6 and mobilize a ma­ jor campaign against the lawsuits. Building on years of (noninmate) 2 See generally RONALD BERKMAN, OPENING THE GATES: THE RISE OF THE PRISONERS' MOVEMENT (1979); James B. Jacobs, The Prisoners' Rights Movement and Its Im­ pacts, in NEW PERSPECTIVES ON PRISONS AND IMPRISONMENT 33 (1983) [hereinafter Ja­ cobs, Prisoners' Rights Movement]. 3 To compute the figures for 1995, I followed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and used a fiscal year; fiscal 1995 runs from October 1,1994 to September 30,1995. This and all filing and outcome figures in this Article are derived from a database compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and cleaned up by the Federal Judicial Center, the research arm of the federal court system. The database includes each and every case "termi­ nated" (that is, ended, at least provisionally) by the federal district courts since 1970. The data, that is, cover not just a sample but the entire universe of federal civil litigation (except for bank­ ruptcy filings in the bankruptcy courts). The Federal Judicial Center lodges this database for public access with the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, which main­ tains it at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu. See Federal Judicial Center, Federal Court Cases: Inte­ grated Data Base, 1970--2000 (pts. 38-55, 64-65, 73-74, 86-88, 98, 103-04, II5-17 (civil termina­ tions 1970--2000), II8 (civil pending 2000» (ICPSR Study No. 8429, last updated Apr. 25, 2002) [hereinafter Federal Court Cases Database, 1970--2000], at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ ICPSR-STUDY/08429·xml; Federal Judicial Center, Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2001 (pts. 2 (civil terminations), 3 (civil pending)) (ICPSR Study No. 3415, last updated June 19, 2002) [hereinafter Federal Court Cases Database, 2001], at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/ ICPSR-STUDY/03415.xml. The Federal Judicial Center also publishes periodic reports culled from this dataset. Except where otherwise noted, my figures are not from these written reports, but are instead based on my extensive analysis compiling and manipulating the raw data. This work is discussed in the Data Appendix to this Article, which appears at its end, but the basic idea is not complicated: I put all the different years of data together and eliminated duplicates. I cite my compiled dataset and all other supporting analysis as Margo Schlanger, Inmate Litigation Technical Appendix (2003) [hereinafter Schlanger, Technical Appendix], available at http://www. law.harvard.edu/faculty/schlanger/projects/index.php. This website posts the code I used to com­ pile the dataset, run the charts, and perform other analyses discussed in this Article.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Calendar No. 481 104Th Congress, 2D Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 104–879
    1 Union Calendar No. 481 104th Congress, 2d Session ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± House Report 104±879 REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DURING THE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 1(d) RULE XI OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 2, 1997.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36±501 WASHINGTON : 1997 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 1 CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL MCCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICH BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico JACK REED, Rhode Island ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BOB INGLIS, South Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia XAVIER BECERRA, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana JOSEÂ E. SERRANO, New York 2 MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California SONNY BONO, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina MAXINE WATERS, California 3 ED BRYANT, Tennessee STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia ALAN F. COFFEY, JR., General Counsel/Staff Director JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director 1 Henry J. Hyde, Illinois, elected to the Committee as Chairman pursuant to House Resolution 11, approved by the House January 5 (legislative day of January 4), 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • The Angola Special Civics Project, 1987-1992
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses Summer 8-4-2011 Organizing for Freedom: The Angola Special Civics Project, 1987-1992 Lydia Pelot-Hobbs University of New Orleans, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td Part of the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Pelot-Hobbs, Lydia, "Organizing for Freedom: The Angola Special Civics Project, 1987-1992" (2011). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 349. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/349 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Organizing for Freedom: The Angola Special Civics Project, 1987-1992 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of New Orleans in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Urban Studies by Lydia Pelot-Hobbs B.A. Oberlin College 2007 August 2011 Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv Epigraph .............................................................................................................................. v Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • National Prison Project
    COVER PHOTOGRAPH: A/P WIDE WORLD PHOTOS 1 Joyce Gilson AUTHORS National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union ACLU National Prison Project Founded in 1972 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National 915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor Prison Project (NPP) seeks to ensure constitutional conditions of confinement Washington, DC 20005 and strengthen prisoners’ rights through class action litigation and public educa- Tel: (202) 393-4930 tion. Our policy priorities include reducing prison overcrowding, improving pris- Fax: (212) 393-4931 oner medical care, eliminating violence and maltreatment in prisons and jails, and www.aclu.org minimizing the reliance on incarceration as a criminal justice sanction. The Pro- ject also publishes a semi-annual Journal, coordinates a nationwide network of liti- gators, conducts training and public education conferences, and provides expert advice and technical assistance to local community groups and lawyers through- out the country. CO-AUTHORS & CONTRIBUTORS American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana ACLU of Louisiana The ACLU of Louisiana has protected traditional American values as a P.O. Box 56157 guardian of liberty since its founding in 1956. Our mission is to conserve Amer- New Orleans, LA 70156-6157 ica’s original civic values embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the Louisiana Tel: (504) 522-0617 Constitution by working daily in the courts, legislature, and communities. We Toll Free: (866) 522-0617 defend the rights of every man, woman, and child residing in this state against Fax: (504) 522-0618 attempts by the government to take away or limit civil liberties and personal free- www.laaclu.org doms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, as well as federal and state laws.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re Juvenile Justice Facilities
    CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report Page 1 of 60 CLOSED, FRC U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:97-cv-00665-FJP In Re: Tallula/Madison Yth, et al v. Date Filed: 07/16/1997 Assigned to: Judge Frank J. Polozola Jury Demand: None Demand: $0 Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Tallulah Correctional Center for represented by Keith B. Nordyke Youth Keith B. Nordyke, LLC also known as 427 Mayflower Street Swanson Correctional Center Madison Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Parish Unit 225-383-1601 Fax: 225-383-2725 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED June E. Denlinger P. O. Box 237 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 866-455-4529 Fax: 866-492-4529 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Plaintiff Juvenile Plaintiffs represented by David J. Utter Brian B. Juvenile Justice Project of La 1600 Oretha Castle Haley Blvd. New Orleans, LA 70113 US 504-522-5437 Fax: 504-522-5430 FAX LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Addison Kennon Goff, III Goff & Goff P. O. Box 2050 Ruston, LA 71273-2050 318-255-1760 Fax: 318-255-7745 https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?759713130620898-L_923_0-1 12/13/2006 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report Page 2 of 60 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED P. Scott Wolleson The Boles Law Firm P. O. Box 2065 1818 Avenue of America Monroe, LA 71207-2065 318-388-4050 Fax: 318-998-7115 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Notice Only Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth also known as Swanson Correctional Center Madison Parish Unit Notice Only Richard L Stalder represented by Richard L Stalder Secretary of DOC P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment Under the Eighth
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ROBERT KING WILKERSON, ET AL CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NUMBER 00-304-RET-DLD RICHARD STALDER, ET AL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the court on referral from the District Judge for a report and recommendation on defendants’ Re-Urged Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing All Eighth Amendment Claims (rec. doc. 164). In their motion, defendants’ seek dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which arise from their approximately 28 to 35 year confinements in the Closed Cell Restriction Unit (“CCR” or “lockdown”) at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (“LSP”) at Angola, Louisiana. Defendants also assert qualified immunity for their alleged actions, and res judicata, or claim preclusion.1 The motion is opposed. Background For purposes of this motion, neither plaintiffs nor defendants dispute the fact of plaintiffs’ incarceration or, indeed, many of the particulars of their incarceration in what LSP refers to as “closed cell restriction” or “extended lockdown.” What they dispute is the 1The defendants argue that they are also entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ state law claims for the same reasons advanced for the plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claims. 1 Case 3:00-cv-00304-RET-DLD Document 233 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 51 reason for their extended lockdown, its significance, both legally and factually, and its effects on these three plaintiffs. When Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox arrived at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in 1969 and 1971, respectively, they initially were classified as medium custody inmates and housed with the general prison population.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Defamation: Still “An Instrument of Destruction” in the Age of Fake News
    CRIMINAL DEFAMATION: STILL “AN INSTRUMENT OF DESTRUCTION” IN THE AGE OF FAKE NEWS Jane E. Kirtley* & Casey Carmody** I. INTRODUCTION When Bangladeshi journalist Abdul Latif Morol, a correspondent for the Daily Probaha, used Facebook on August 1, 2017 to relay reports about the death of a goat, he was not expecting to be the target of a criminal defamation prosecution.1 The previous day, Bangladesh’s Minister of State for Fisheries and Livestock Narayan Chandra Chanda donated the goat to a poor farmer in Dumuria during an event sponsored by the government’s local livestock department.2 Following the event, news organizations published stories noting that the goat had died overnight. Morol took to Facebook to report the information, writing, “Goat given by state minister in the morning dies in the evening.”3 Soon after the post was published, fellow journalist Subrata Faujdar, a correspondent for the Daily Spandan, filed a criminal defamation complaint against Morol.4 Faujdar claimed that Morol’s post, which also contained a photo of the minister, was intended to demean the official.5 Faujdar was a supporter of the ruling party in Bangladesh and filed the complaint because * Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law, and Director, Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota; Affiliated Faculty Member, University of Minnesota Law School. ** PhD Candidate, Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota. The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Scott Memmel, PhD candidate and editor Silha Bulletin, Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, in the preparation of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Contracting Activity
    Vendor Name Address Vendor Contact Vendor Phone Email Address Total Amount 1213 U STREET LLC /T/A BEN'S 1213 U ST., NW WASHINGTON DC 20009 VIRGINIA ALI 202-667-909 $3,181.75 350 ROCKWOOD DRIVE SOUTHINGTON CT 13TH JUROR, LLC 6489 REGINALD F. ALLARD, JR. 860-621-1013 $7,675.00 1417 N STREET NWCOOPERATIVE 1417 N ST NW COOPERATIVE WASHINGTON DC 20005 SILVIA SALAZAR 202-412-3244 $156,751.68 1133 15TH STREET NW, 12TH FL12TH FLOOR 1776 CAMPUS, INC. WASHINGTON DC 20005 BRITTANY HEYD 703-597-5237 [email protected] $200,000.00 6230 3rd Street NWSuite 2 Washington DC 1919 Calvert Street LLC 20011 Cheryl Davis 202-722-7423 $1,740,577.50 4606 16TH STREET, NW WASHINGTON DC 19TH STREET BAPTIST CHRUCH 20011 ROBIN SMITH 202-829-2773 $3,200.00 2013 H ST NWSTE 300 WASHINGTON DC 2013 HOLDINGS, INC 20006 NANCY SOUTHERS 202-454-1220 $5,000.00 3900 MILITARY ROAD NW WASHINGTON DC 202 COMMUNICATIONS INC. 20015 MIKE HEFFNER 202-244-8700 [email protected] $31,169.00 1010 NW 52ND TERRACEPO BOX 8593 TOPEAK 20-20 CAPTIONING & REPORTING KS 66608 JEANETTE CHRISTIAN 785-286-2730 [email protected] $3,120.00 21C3 LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT LL 11 WATERFORD CIRCLE HAMPTON VA 23666 KIPP ROGERS 757-503-5559 [email protected] $9,500.00 1816 12TH STREET NW WASHINGTON DC 21ST CENTURY SCHOOL FUND 20009 MARY FILARDO 202-745-3745 [email protected] $303,200.00 1550 CATON CENTER DRIVE, 21ST CENTURY SECURITY, LLC #ADBA/PROSHRED SECURITY BALTIMORE MD C. MARTIN FISHER 410-242-9224 $14,326.25 22 Atlantic Street CoOp 22 Atlantic Street SE Washington DC 20032 LaVerne Grant 202-409-1813 $2,899,682.00 11701 BOWMAN GREEN DRIVE RESTON VA 2228 MLK LLC 20190 CHRIS GAELER 703-581-6109 $218,182.28 1651 Old Meadow RoadSuite 305 McLean VA 2321 4th Street LLC 22102 Jim Edmondson 703-893-303 $13,612,478.00 722 12TH STREET NWFLOOR 3 WASHINGTON 270 STRATEGIES INC DC 20005 LENORA HANKS 312-618-1614 [email protected] $60,000.00 2ND LOGIC, LLC 10405 OVERGATE PLACE POTOMAC MD 20854 REZA SAFAMEJAD 202-827-7420 [email protected] $58,500.00 3119 Martin Luther King Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends to Note in Alcoholic Beverage Trademark Law That Can Impact
    Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal Volume 12 Number 1 2018-01-01 Article 5 1-1-2018 Trends to Note in Alcoholic Beverage Trademark Law That Can Impact the Decision Making Process for Businesses At Critical Points in the Alcoholic Beverage Product Life Cycle Tracy Jong Tracy Jong Law Firm Luis Emilio Ormaechea Tracy Jong Law Firm Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffaloipjournal Recommended Citation Tracy Jong & Luis E. Ormaechea, Trends to Note in Alcoholic Beverage Trademark Law That Can Impact the Decision Making Process for Businesses At Critical Points in the Alcoholic Beverage Product Life Cycle, 12 Buff. Intell. Prop. L.J. 19 (2018). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffaloipjournal/vol12/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRENDS TO NOTE IN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TRADEMARK LAW THAT CAN IMPACT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS FOR BUSINESSES AT CRITICAL POINTS IN THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE 2 TRAcY JONG' AND LUIs ORMAECHEA Tracy Jong is a patent and trademark attorney at Tracy Jong Law Firm. Tracy focuses her practice on client counseling related to patent and trademark prosecution for a range of clients including small startup companies, restaurants and bars, craft beverage companies and product manufacturers. Tracy received her J.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hacker's Aegis
    Emory Law Journal Volume 60 Issue 5 2010 The Hacker's Aegis Derek E. Bambauer Oliver Day Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj Recommended Citation Derek E. Bambauer & Oliver Day, The Hacker's Aegis, 60 Emory L. J. 1051 (2010). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol60/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Emory Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Emory Law Journal by an authorized editor of Emory Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BAMBAUER&DAY GALLEYSFINAL 6/6/2011 10:27 AM THE HACKER’S AEGIS Derek E. Bambauer* ∗∗ Oliver Day ABSTRACT Intellectual property (IP) law stifles critical research on software security vulnerabilities, placing computer users at risk. Researchers who discover flaws often face IP-based legal threats if they reveal findings to anyone other than the software vendor. This Article argues that the interplay between law and vulnerability data challenges existing scholarship on how intellectual property law should regulate information about improvements on protected works, and suggests weakening, not enhancing, IP protections where infringement is difficult to detect, lucrative, and creates significant negative externalities. It proposes a set of three reforms—“patches,” in software terms—to protect security research. Legal reform would create immunity from civil IP liability for researchers who follow “responsible disclosure” rules. Linguistic reform would seek to make the term hacker less threatening either by recapturing the term’s original meaning, or abandoning it.
    [Show full text]
  • Williams V. Mckeithen
    CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report Page 1 of 346 ATTENTION, CLOSED U.S. District Court Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:71-cv-00098-FJP Williams, et al v. Edwards, et al Date Filed: 03/26/1971 Assigned to: Chief Judge Frank J. Polozola Jury Demand: None Demand: $0 Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Hayes Williams represented by Keith B. Nordyke Keith B. Nordyke, LLC 427 Mayflower Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225-383-1601 Fax: 225-383-2725 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Angela M. Pelletier Arnold and Porter 555 12th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 202-942-6027 Blake A. Biles Arnold and Porter 555 12th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 202-942-6027 June E. Denlinger Nordyke & Denlinger 427 Mayflower Street P. O. Box 237 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 225-383-1601 Fax: 383-2725 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kathleen A. Behan Arnold and Porter 555 12th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 https://ecf.lamd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?748709067794647-L_280_0-1 8/3/2005 CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:lamd - Docket Report Page 2 of 346 202-942-5000 Fax: 202-942-5999 Robert Howard Cooper Pelleteri, Weidorn & Cooper 400 Poydras Street Suite 1980 New Orleans, LA 70130 504-523-2650 Plaintiff Lee D. Stevenson represented by Keith B. Nordyke TERMINATED: 10/21/1997 (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/21/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED June E.
    [Show full text]
  • Pet. Appendix A
    Neutral As of: January 15, 2020 4:55 PM Z State v. Clark Supreme Court of Louisiana June 28, 2019, Decided No. 2012-KA-0508 Reporter 2019 La. LEXIS 1618 *; 2012-0508 (La. 06/28/19);; 2019 WL 2750865 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JEFFREY CLARK Case Summary Overview Notice: THIS DECISION IS NOT FINAL UNTIL ISSUE: Whether the Louisiana Supreme Court's rule— EXPIRATION OF THE FOURTEEN DAY REHEARING that an indigent defendant must accept his trial PERIOD. counsel's decision to concede his guilt of second degree murder over his express objections or represent himself—vitiated the voluntariness of defendant's waiver of counsel. HOLDINGS: [1]-There was no violation of defendant's secured autonomy under U.S. Const. Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by State v. amend. VI because the record showed that defendant Clark, 278 So. 3d 364, 2019 La. LEXIS 1932 (La., Sept. and counsel were aligned in their strategy to deny 6, 2019) involvement in a murder while admitting participation in an attempt to escape and the record did not reflect an intractable disagreement about the fundamental objective of the representation. Defendant offered Prior History: [*1] ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED several reasons for his decision to assume the mantle of STATES SUPREME COURT. lead counsel, and was thoroughly and correctly advised by the district court, before the court permitted Clark v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 2671, 201 L. Ed. 2d 1066, defendant a hybrid representation. 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3953 (U.S., June 25, 2018) Disposition: AFFIRMED. Outcome Judgment affirmed. Core Terms guilt, concede, sentence, district court, first trial, self- LexisNexis® Headnotes representation, reasons, murder, first degree murder, death sentence, Sixth Amendment, appointed, innocence, hybrid, admit Constitutional Law > ..
    [Show full text]
  • Article Inmate Litigation
    SCHLANGER - BOOKPROOFS. DOC – NOT FINAL PAGINATION 05/22/03 – 3:33 PM VOLUME 116 APRIL 2003 NUMBER 6 ARTICLE INMATE LITIGATION Margo Schlanger TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................1557 I. INMATE LITIGATION TRENDS..........................................................................................1565 A. The Varied Subject Matter of Inmate Litigation .........................................................1570 B. Inmate Litigation Rates..........................................................................................1575 C. Inmate Filing Rates over Time: The “Deluge”...........................................................1578 D. Of Babies and Bath Water: The Processing of Inmate Cases........................................1587 II. OUTCOMES IN INMATE CASES (P RIOR TO THE PLRA).......................................................1590 A. Outcomes: The Data ...............................................................................................1593 B. Outcomes: Explanations..........................................................................................1605 1. Limited Legal Rights/Exacting Decision Standard................................................1605 2. Easy Access to Courts........................................................................................1607 3. The Absence of Counsel....................................................................................1609 4. Obstacles to
    [Show full text]