Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • E.T. V George, Civil Complaint, July 16, 2009

    Загружено:

    Rick Thoma
    17 просмотров29 страниц
    E.T. v George Civil Complaint July 16, 2009 Winston & Strawn, together with the Children’s Advocacy Institute, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 state officials responsible for setting policy for and overseeing the statewide administration of California courts on behalf of a class of foster children represented by attorneys in the dependency court system of Sacramento County, California. The action challenges administrative decisions having to do with resource allocation and funding—in particular, policy decisions that resulted in average caseloads ballooning to around 395 per dependency attorney, which is over twice the maximum defendants themselves recommend. The lower court abstained from hearing the dispute, and the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, holding that equitable abstention was required because petitioners’ challenge would cause the federal court to intrude on state-court administration. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit expanded equitable abstention doctrine, dramatically contracting federal jurisdiction over civil rights suits against state agencies. Winston filed a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the circuit split on abstention and to correct the inappropriate bar from federal court of all § 1983 cases against court administrators and policymakers.

    Оригинальное название

    E.T. v George, Civil Complaint, July 16, 2009

    Авторское право

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    E.T. v George Civil Complaint July 16, 2009 Winston & Strawn, together with the Children’s Advocacy Institute, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 state officials responsible for setting policy for and overseeing the statewide administration of California courts on behalf of a class of foster children represented by attorneys in the dependency court system of Sacramento County, California. The action challenges administrative decisions having to do with resource allocation and funding—in particular, policy decisions that resulted in average caseloads ballooning to around 395 per dependency attorney, which is over twice the maximum defendants themselves recommend. The lower court abstained from hearing the dispute, and the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, holding that equitable abstention was required because petitioners’ challenge would cause the federal court to intrude on state-court administration. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit expanded equitable abstention doctrine, dramatically contracting federal jurisdiction over civil rights suits against state agencies. Winston filed a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the circuit split on abstention and to correct the inappropriate bar from federal court of all § 1983 cases against court administrators and policymakers.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    17 просмотров29 страниц

    E.T. V George, Civil Complaint, July 16, 2009

    Загружено:

    Rick Thoma
    E.T. v George Civil Complaint July 16, 2009 Winston & Strawn, together with the Children’s Advocacy Institute, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 state officials responsible for setting policy for and overseeing the statewide administration of California courts on behalf of a class of foster children represented by attorneys in the dependency court system of Sacramento County, California. The action challenges administrative decisions having to do with resource allocation and funding—in particular, policy decisions that resulted in average caseloads ballooning to around 395 per dependency attorney, which is over twice the maximum defendants themselves recommend. The lower court abstained from hearing the dispute, and the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, holding that equitable abstention was required because petitioners’ challenge would cause the federal court to intrude on state-court administration. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit expanded equitable abstention doctrine, dramatically contracting federal jurisdiction over civil rights suits against state agencies. Winston filed a petition for writ of certiorari to resolve the circuit split on abstention and to correct the inappropriate bar from federal court of all § 1983 cases against court administrators and policymakers.

    Авторское право:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 1 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 2 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 3 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 4 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 5 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 6 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 7 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 8 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 9 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 10 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 11 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 12 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 13 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 14 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 15 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 16 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 17 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 18 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 19 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 20 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 21 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 22 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 23 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 24 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 25 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 26 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 27 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 28 of 29

    Case 2:09-at-01115

    Document 2

    Filed 07/16/2009

    Page 29 of 29

    Вам также может понравиться