Skip to main content

Search

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.7 The Pullman Doctrine

The Supreme Court announced this aspect of abstention, known as Pullman abstention, in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. In Pullman, the railroad sued a state regulatory agency. The railroad challenged on Fourteenth Amendment grounds the requirement that all trains in Texas have a conductor in each sleeping car. Employment in the railroad industry was racially segregated; whites were employed as conductors, while African Americans performing similar work were employed as porters. Thus, the regulation had a discriminatory impact on African Americans.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.8 England Reservations

Once a federal court invokes Pullman abstention, it generally should not dismiss the action, but instead should retain jurisdiction and stay proceedings regarding the federal constitutional issues while the plaintiff litigates the unclear question of state law through the state courts.477 An important step to remember in the event the federal court abstains is that, in the state court action, the plaintiff must not only present the state law question, but must also ask the state court to construe it in light of the federal issue, whi

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.9 State Certification as a Pullman Alternative

If the forum state has a procedure by which its highest court answers state law questions a federal court certifies to it, a federal court can potentially obtain an authoritative ruling on ambiguous issues of applicable state law. Although certification procedures vary widely among the states, most states accept certified questions from the U.S. Supreme Court, any federal court of appeals, or any U.S. district court. Other states accept certified questions from specified federal courts.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.10 Burford Abstention

In Burford v. Sun Oil Co., the Supreme Court ordered the dismissal of a federal suit challenging the reasonableness under Texas law of a state commission’s decision to grant a permit to drill oil wells.489 The Court created what has become known as Burford abstention to avoid the potentially disruptive impact that federal court intervention would have on the state’s efforts to maintain a unique and complex administrative structure to regulate a vital state activity.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.12 Specific Applications of Burford

The classic example of Burford abstention remains a challenge to a state utility regulatory system.506 Burford abstention has also been upheld, however, in varied settings such as workers compensation, insurance, zoning, and related land use issues.507 Of particular interest to legal aid advocates, Burford abstention has additionally been upheld in challenges involving Medicaid contract funding as well as food stamp eligibility,508

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.14 The “Parallel” Requirement

Colorado River abstention is inapplicable unless there is parallel litigation.527 Thus, generally, in the absence of simultaneous proceedings that are sufficiently parallel, the abstention factors (discussed below) should not be reached. The Circuits have used different analyses to determine whether parallel proceedings exist, which are summarized below.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.16 Colorado River And Declaratory Judgment Actions

The Supreme Court held in Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., a diversity action, that a standard of substantial discretion, rather than the Colorado River “exceptional circumstances” standard, governed a district court’s decision to stay a declaratory judgment action on grounds of a parallel state court proceeding.572 This discretion is conferred upon the federal courts by the permissive language of the Declaratory Judgment Act.573 The Court reaffirmed Brillhart v.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.8.18 The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Because lower federal courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts, the Supreme Court refuses to permit losing state court litigants to invoke federal jurisdiction to attack state court judgments on the ground that the state court acted unconstitutionally.581 This doctrine, often referred to as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, originated in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.582 The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.0 Introduction

Without intending to be comprehensive, this Chapter discusses a variety of procedural issues related to litigation and trial practice, roughly in the chronology of litigation. First, the Chapter deals with conferences and scheduling, including the role of magistrate judges. Second, the Chapter reviews informal and formal methods of discovery, including mandatory initial disclosures and conferences involving discovery issues. Mechanics, strategy, and practice pointers are included.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.1.2 Practice Pointers for the Rule 26(f) Meeting of the Parties

Use the Rule 26(f) meeting of the parties to shape discovery to your advantage and to pry information from opposing counsel. Before the conference, send opposing counsel a letter that (1) identifies evidentiary issues relating to electronically-stored information (ESI) and states that you expect opposing counsel to be familiar with the defendant’s ESI; and (2) includes a draft of the joint report of the meeting of the parties that the parties are required to file with the court pursuant to Rule 26(f)(2).2241

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.1.3 The Timing and Location of the Rule 26(f) Meeting of the Parties

Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the parties must “confer” at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).2242 The judge must normally issue a scheduling order “as soon as practicable,” but in any event by the earlier of 90 days after any defendant has been served or 60 days after any defendant has appeared.2243 The parties’ counsel may meet in person, by Zoom, phone, or even by email exchange, unless the court order

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.1.7 Developing your internal discovery plan

Successful discovery requires that you identify what you must prove as early as possible. Your internal discovery plan should therefore identify the facts that you must prove, the discovery tools most likely to assist in proving those facts, and a sequence for using the various discovery tools. As you accumulate information, you must maintain a carefully organized file that shows both the content and the source of every document. You should also develop a tool for ascertaining the admissibility of every document upon which you plan to rely.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.1.8 The Rule 26(f) Report of the Parties’ Conference

Pursuant to Rule 26(f)(2), the parties are required to file a report with the court a report of their Rule 26(f) meeting, unless the court orders otherwise. As noted above, Rule 26(f)((2) and (3) set forth the issues that the parties must discuss at this meeting, and the parties must also discuss any other matters as required by the court’s local rules or the court’s order for conference and address them in their 26(f) report.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.2.1 The Scope of Allowable Discovery

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specify the general parameters of allowable discovery in a lawsuit. (Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that went into effect on December 1, 2015, significantly changed Rule 26(b), in particular the definition of “relevance.” This chapter will be updated accordingly, but in the meantime, advocates are advised to review these changes.) Rule 26(b)(1) specifies the following, “unless otherwise limited by court order”:

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 6.2.4 Interrogatories

Interrogatories can be directed only to other parties, who then have thirty days to respond.2347 Interrogatories propounded on one party must be served on each party, unless the court orders otherwise.2348 Filing discovery requests and responses with the court is prohibited, except in connection with pretrial motions or at trial or the court orders filing.2349 Examples are attachments to motions to compel, for protective orders, or for summar