×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Sixth Circuit Remands Bazetta, Yet Again
In an unpublished ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to
peremptorily reverse two post-judgment orders entered by a Michigan
district court in a prisoner class action civil rights case challenging
certain Michigan prison visitation regulations.
Prison officials argued that those orders, which grant judgment in favor
of the prisoners, are void in light of the decision in Overton v. Bazzetta,
123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003). That decision held that certain Michigan prison
regulations were invalid on their face but reserved any argument that an
individual claim based on indefinite withdrawal of visitation or denial of
procedural safeguards would pass muster under the First and Eighth
Amendments as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Sixth Circuit remanded the matter for the district court to determine
the validity of its order in light of Overton. See: Bazetta v. McGinnis, 79
Fed. Appx. 161 (6th Cir. 2003).
peremptorily reverse two post-judgment orders entered by a Michigan
district court in a prisoner class action civil rights case challenging
certain Michigan prison visitation regulations.
Prison officials argued that those orders, which grant judgment in favor
of the prisoners, are void in light of the decision in Overton v. Bazzetta,
123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003). That decision held that certain Michigan prison
regulations were invalid on their face but reserved any argument that an
individual claim based on indefinite withdrawal of visitation or denial of
procedural safeguards would pass muster under the First and Eighth
Amendments as incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Sixth Circuit remanded the matter for the district court to determine
the validity of its order in light of Overton. See: Bazetta v. McGinnis, 79
Fed. Appx. 161 (6th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Bazetta v. McGinnis
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 79 Fed. Appx. 161 (6th Cir. 2003) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
MICHELLE BAZZETTA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KENNETH MCGINNIS, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections; MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 02-1756/2096
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
79 Fed. Appx. 161; 2003 U.S. App.
October 24, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Eastern District of Michigan. 95-73540. Edmunds. 05-17-02, 08-22-02. Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 73 Fed. Appx. 842, 2003 U.S. App. (6th Cir. Mich., Aug. 28, 2003)
DISPOSITION: Defendants' motion for peremptory reversal denied. Case remanded.
COUNSEL: For MICHELLE BAZZETTA, STACY BARKER, TONI BUNTON, DEBRA KING, SHANTE ALLEN, ADRIENNE BRANAUGH, ALESIA BUTLER, TAMARA PRUDE, SUSAN FAIR, VALERIE BUNTON, ARTURO BUNTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees (02-1756): Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI.
For MICHELLE BAZZETTA, STACY BARKER, TONI BUNTON, DEBRA KING, SHANTE ALLEN, ADRIENNE BRANAUGH, ALESIA BUTLER, TAMARA PRUDE, SUSAN FAIR, VALERIE BUNTON, ARTURO BUNTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees [**2] (02-1756, 02-2096): Deborah A. LaBelle, Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle, Ann Arbor, MI.
For MICHELLE BAZZETTA, STACY BARKER, TONI BUNTON, DEBRA KING, SHANTE ALLEN, ADRIENNE BRANAUGH, ALESIA BUTLER, SUSAN FAIR, VALERIE BUNTON, ARTURO BUNTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees (02-2096): Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI.
For KENNETH MCGINNIS, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellants (02-1756, 02-2096): Lisa C. Ward, Asst. Attorney Gen., Leo H. Friedman, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, MI.
JUDGES: Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; MILLS, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*162] ORDER
The defendants, The Michigan Department of Corrections and its director (collectively MDOC), appeal two post-judgment orders entered by the district court in this prisoners civil rights case challenging certain Michigan prison visitation regulations. MDOC now moves for peremptory reversal in Case No. 02-1756. The plaintiffs oppose the motion and ask that this matter be remanded to the district court for further consideration. MDOC has filed a reply. In [**3] Case No. 02-2096, MDOC moves to hold briefing in abeyance pending further proceedings in the district court. The plaintiffs oppose the motion.
Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 148 F. Supp.2d 813 (2001). MDOC filed a timely appeal which was docketed as Case No. 01-1635. On April 10, 2002, a decision was entered in Case No. 01-1635 affirming the district court's judgment. Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 286 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2002).
The orders which are the subject of the present appeals were entered in the district court on May 16, 2002, and August 20, 2002. The May 16 order directed MDOC to comply with the terms of the judgment affirmed on appeal in Case No. 01-1635. The August 20 order granted the plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees. The Supreme Court has now issued an opinion reversing this court's decision in Case No. 01-1635. Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 156 L. Ed. 2d 162, 123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003). On August 28. 2003, an order was entered by this court in Case No. 01-1635 vacating its previous decision and remanding the case to the district court for further consideration in [**4] light of the opinion in Overton. The order explains that the Supreme Court reversed this court's decision "holding that certain Michigan prison regulations were invalid on their face," but reserved "any argument that an 'individual claim based on indefinite withdrawal of visitation or denial of procedural safeguards' would pass muster under the First and Eighth Amendments as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment."
In seeking peremptory reversal, MDOC argues that the district court's May 16 order of compliance is no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Overton. The May 16 compliance order and the August 20 fee award were both premised on the judgment that was appealed in Case No. 01-1635. That case has now been remanded to the district court for further consideration, and we are of the opinion that a remand is also warranted in the present cases. The issues MDOC seeks to raise, i.e., the validity of the May 16 order in light of Overton and the plaintiffs' status as a prevailing party, should be considered by the district court in the first instance.
The defendants' motion for peremptory reversal in Case No. 02-1756 is DENIED. Case Nos. 02-1756 and [**5] 02-2096 are hereby REMANDED to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 156 L. Ed. 2d 162, 123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003). The defendants' motion to hold briefing in abeyance in Case No. 02-2096 is denied as moot.
Nos. 02-1756/2096
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
79 Fed. Appx. 161; 2003 U.S. App.
October 24, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION. SIXTH CIRCUIT RULE 28(g) LIMITS CITATION TO SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. PLEASE SEE RULE 28(g) BEFORE CITING IN A PROCEEDING IN A COURT IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IF CITED, A COPY MUST BE SERVED ON OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT. THIS NOTICE IS TO BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IF THIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED.
PRIOR HISTORY: Eastern District of Michigan. 95-73540. Edmunds. 05-17-02, 08-22-02. Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 73 Fed. Appx. 842, 2003 U.S. App. (6th Cir. Mich., Aug. 28, 2003)
DISPOSITION: Defendants' motion for peremptory reversal denied. Case remanded.
COUNSEL: For MICHELLE BAZZETTA, STACY BARKER, TONI BUNTON, DEBRA KING, SHANTE ALLEN, ADRIENNE BRANAUGH, ALESIA BUTLER, TAMARA PRUDE, SUSAN FAIR, VALERIE BUNTON, ARTURO BUNTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees (02-1756): Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI.
For MICHELLE BAZZETTA, STACY BARKER, TONI BUNTON, DEBRA KING, SHANTE ALLEN, ADRIENNE BRANAUGH, ALESIA BUTLER, TAMARA PRUDE, SUSAN FAIR, VALERIE BUNTON, ARTURO BUNTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees [**2] (02-1756, 02-2096): Deborah A. LaBelle, Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle, Ann Arbor, MI.
For MICHELLE BAZZETTA, STACY BARKER, TONI BUNTON, DEBRA KING, SHANTE ALLEN, ADRIENNE BRANAUGH, ALESIA BUTLER, SUSAN FAIR, VALERIE BUNTON, ARTURO BUNTON, Plaintiffs - Appellees (02-2096): Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI.
For KENNETH MCGINNIS, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellants (02-1756, 02-2096): Lisa C. Ward, Asst. Attorney Gen., Leo H. Friedman, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, MI.
JUDGES: Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; MILLS, District Judge. *
* The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
OPINION:
[*162] ORDER
The defendants, The Michigan Department of Corrections and its director (collectively MDOC), appeal two post-judgment orders entered by the district court in this prisoners civil rights case challenging certain Michigan prison visitation regulations. MDOC now moves for peremptory reversal in Case No. 02-1756. The plaintiffs oppose the motion and ask that this matter be remanded to the district court for further consideration. MDOC has filed a reply. In [**3] Case No. 02-2096, MDOC moves to hold briefing in abeyance pending further proceedings in the district court. The plaintiffs oppose the motion.
Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs. Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 148 F. Supp.2d 813 (2001). MDOC filed a timely appeal which was docketed as Case No. 01-1635. On April 10, 2002, a decision was entered in Case No. 01-1635 affirming the district court's judgment. Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 286 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2002).
The orders which are the subject of the present appeals were entered in the district court on May 16, 2002, and August 20, 2002. The May 16 order directed MDOC to comply with the terms of the judgment affirmed on appeal in Case No. 01-1635. The August 20 order granted the plaintiff's motion for attorneys fees. The Supreme Court has now issued an opinion reversing this court's decision in Case No. 01-1635. Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 156 L. Ed. 2d 162, 123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003). On August 28. 2003, an order was entered by this court in Case No. 01-1635 vacating its previous decision and remanding the case to the district court for further consideration in [**4] light of the opinion in Overton. The order explains that the Supreme Court reversed this court's decision "holding that certain Michigan prison regulations were invalid on their face," but reserved "any argument that an 'individual claim based on indefinite withdrawal of visitation or denial of procedural safeguards' would pass muster under the First and Eighth Amendments as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment."
In seeking peremptory reversal, MDOC argues that the district court's May 16 order of compliance is no longer valid in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Overton. The May 16 compliance order and the August 20 fee award were both premised on the judgment that was appealed in Case No. 01-1635. That case has now been remanded to the district court for further consideration, and we are of the opinion that a remand is also warranted in the present cases. The issues MDOC seeks to raise, i.e., the validity of the May 16 order in light of Overton and the plaintiffs' status as a prevailing party, should be considered by the district court in the first instance.
The defendants' motion for peremptory reversal in Case No. 02-1756 is DENIED. Case Nos. 02-1756 and [**5] 02-2096 are hereby REMANDED to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 156 L. Ed. 2d 162, 123 S. Ct. 2162 (2003). The defendants' motion to hold briefing in abeyance in Case No. 02-2096 is denied as moot.