Kerry v. Din: Docket No. 13-1402
Fauzia Din, who is a United States citizen, filed a visa petition for her husband Kanishka Berashk, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. Nine months later, the State Department denied the petition due to provisions made on the Immigration and Nationality Act, excluding aliens on terrorism-related grounds. Berashk asked for the reasons for his visa denial, but the Embassy said it was not possible for them to provide a detailed explanation for the reasons of denial. After many unsuccessful attempts to receive explanation of the visa denial, Din argued that denying notice for aliens who were not granted a visa based on terrorism grounds is unconstitutional. Is the government required to give a detailed explanation to aliens for denying their visa based on terrorism-related ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
City of Los Angeles v. Patel: Docket No. 13-1175
Naranjibhai and Ramilaben Patel are owners of motels in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires motel operators to keep records with certain information about their guests. The LAMC also authorizes police officers to search hotel hues records at any time without a warrant. The Patels argued that the LAMC violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The city of Los Angeles argued that motels are “closely regulated” businesses, so they should be susceptible to warrantless searches. Is the LAMC allowing police to inspect hotel records without a warrant inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's privacy expectations?
Coleman v. Tollefson: Docket No. 13-1333
The “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court if the prisoner has, on three or more occasions while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. Andre Lee Coleman, a Michigan state prisoner, filed many claims while incarcerated. His first claim was dismissed as frivolous, and his second claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Coleman’s third claim was also dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he appealed the decison. Coleman’s appeal of his third claim was unresolved when he later filed his fourth claim and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied Coleman’s motion and held that Coleman’s three previous dismissals prevented him from proceeding in forma pauperis on his fourth claim. The court then ordered Coleman to pay the $350 filing fee. After Coleman failed to pay the fee and his fourth claim was dismissed, Coleman appealed. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed and held that the PLRA does not require that all dismissals be final to count as a “strike.” Does a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a “strike” under the PLRA while it is still pending on appeal?
Fauzia Din, who is a United States citizen, filed a visa petition for her husband Kanishka Berashk, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. Nine months later, the State Department denied the petition due to provisions made on the Immigration and Nationality Act, excluding aliens on terrorism-related grounds. Berashk asked for the reasons for his visa denial, but the Embassy said it was not possible for them to provide a detailed explanation for the reasons of denial. After many unsuccessful attempts to receive explanation of the visa denial, Din argued that denying notice for aliens who were not granted a visa based on terrorism grounds is unconstitutional. Is the government required to give a detailed explanation to aliens for denying their visa based on terrorism-related ground under the Immigration and Nationality Act?
City of Los Angeles v. Patel: Docket No. 13-1175
Naranjibhai and Ramilaben Patel are owners of motels in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) requires motel operators to keep records with certain information about their guests. The LAMC also authorizes police officers to search hotel hues records at any time without a warrant. The Patels argued that the LAMC violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. The city of Los Angeles argued that motels are “closely regulated” businesses, so they should be susceptible to warrantless searches. Is the LAMC allowing police to inspect hotel records without a warrant inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's privacy expectations?
Coleman v. Tollefson: Docket No. 13-1333
The “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court if the prisoner has, on three or more occasions while incarcerated, brought an action or appeal that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim. Andre Lee Coleman, a Michigan state prisoner, filed many claims while incarcerated. His first claim was dismissed as frivolous, and his second claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Coleman’s third claim was also dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he appealed the decison. Coleman’s appeal of his third claim was unresolved when he later filed his fourth claim and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied Coleman’s motion and held that Coleman’s three previous dismissals prevented him from proceeding in forma pauperis on his fourth claim. The court then ordered Coleman to pay the $350 filing fee. After Coleman failed to pay the fee and his fourth claim was dismissed, Coleman appealed. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed and held that the PLRA does not require that all dismissals be final to count as a “strike.” Does a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit counts as a “strike” under the PLRA while it is still pending on appeal?