What happened. What do you think?

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 11, 2026

Published

In FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd., the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not create an implied private right of action allowing investors to sue for rescission of contracts that allegedly violate that law. The Court reasoned that Section 47(b) is directed at courts and their remedial authority, not at conferring individual rights to sue, and that the Act's comprehensive…

The case arose when Saba Capital, an activist investment firm, sued several closed-end mutual funds after those funds adopted resolutions under Maryland law that limited the voting rights of large shareholders like Saba. Saba argued that these resolutions violated the Investment Company Act, which requires that every share of stock carry equal voting rights. Saba relied on Section 47(b) of the Act, which says a court may not deny rescission of a contract that violates the…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 11, 2026

Published

In Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Fifth Circuit ruling that had blocked a personal-injury lawsuit because the plaintiff failed to disclose the claim during a pending bankruptcy case. The Court held that courts must look at the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether such an omission was inadvertent or a mistake, rather than applying the Fifth Circuit's narrow two-factor test that asked only whether the debtor…

Thomas Keathley filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in December 2019, which required him to disclose all assets including potential legal claims against third parties. In August 2021, while the bankruptcy case was still open, Keathley was injured in a car accident involving an employee of Buddy Ayers Construction. He hired a personal-injury attorney and told his bankruptcy lawyer about plans to sue, but neither he nor his bankruptcy counsel informed the bankruptcy court. He then…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Abouammo v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 11, 2026

Published

In Abouammo v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a Ninth Circuit decision and held that a defendant charged with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the falsification took place, not where the federal investigation was located. Ahmad Abouammo created a fake invoice in Seattle but was tried in the Northern District of California, where the FBI investigation was based. The Court reasoned that the…

The central question in this case was where the government must hold a criminal trial when someone is charged under 18 U.S.C. Section 1519, a federal law making it a crime to knowingly falsify a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation. Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, created a fake invoice on his computer in Seattle to mislead FBI agents who were investigating whether he had shared confidential user information with a Saudi official. He was…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Abouammo v. United States Revisions: 6/16/26

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 11, 2026

Published

In Abouammo v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that a person charged under 18 U.S.C. Section 1519 for falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the falsification took place, not where the investigation was located. Ahmad Abouammo created a fake invoice in Seattle, but was tried in San Francisco, where the FBI investigation he intended to obstruct was based. The Court found…

The central question in this case was whether a defendant accused of falsifying a document under federal law could be prosecuted in the district where the investigation he intended to obstruct was located, rather than in the district where he actually created the false document. The federal obstruction statute at issue, 18 U.S.C. Section 1519, makes it a crime to knowingly falsify a record or document with the intent to impede or obstruct a federal investigation. The facts…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Sripetch v. SEC

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 4, 2026

Published

In Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit and held that the SEC does not need to prove that investors suffered a financial loss before a court can order a securities-law violator to give up ill-gotten gains through disgorgement. The Court reasoned that traditional equitable principles, which govern disgorgement remedies, have never required a showing of pecuniary loss, only that the defendant wrongfully…

The central question in this case was whether the SEC, when seeking disgorgement of profits from a securities fraudster, must first prove that the fraud victims suffered actual financial losses. Ongkaruck Sripetch engaged in fraudulent schemes involving at least 20 penny-stock companies. After consenting to judgment against him, he objected when the SEC sought over $4.1 million in disgorgement, arguing that the SEC had no evidence investors lost money and that, under the…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

FCC v. AT&T

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 4, 2026

Published

In FCC v. AT&T, Inc. (decided June 4, 2026), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission does not violate the Seventh Amendment when it issues forfeiture orders against telecommunications carriers without a jury trial. The Court reasoned that because FCC forfeiture orders do not create a final, binding obligation to pay, and because any actual collection requires a separate court proceeding with a full trial de novo, the carriers retain their right to…

The case arose from FCC investigations into AT&T and Verizon over their handling of customer location data. The Commission concluded that both carriers had violated rules requiring them to protect that data, and it assessed penalties of roughly 57 million dollars against AT&T and 47 million dollars against Verizon. Both carriers argued that imposing these penalties without a jury trial violated the Seventh Amendment, which preserves the right to a jury in suits involving…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 4, 2026

Published

In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin failed to state a claim that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin's cardiovascular drug patents. The Court reasoned that Hikma's label, press releases, website, and patient leaflet did not contain affirmative steps to encourage doctors to prescribe the drug for a patented use, but instead reflected standard legal compliance and…

This case arose from a federal law that allows generic drug manufacturers to seek approval for a narrow set of uses of a brand-name drug, leaving out still-patented uses, through what is called a skinny label. Amarin Pharma developed Vascepa, which the FDA approved first for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia and later for reducing cardiovascular risk in certain patients. Amarin held patents on the cardiovascular use. Hikma, a generic manufacturer, obtained FDA approval…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Allen v. Milligan

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 2, 2026

Published

In Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court granted Alabama officials' request to stay a federal district court injunction that had blocked the state from using its own 2023 congressional map for the upcoming 2026 elections. The Court reasoned that Alabama was likely to succeed on appeal because the district court's analysis did not follow the updated legal standards the Supreme Court had recently established in Louisiana v. Callais, which tightened the rules for proving voting…

This case concerns Alabama's 2023 congressional map and whether it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting Black voters' political power. A federal district court had enjoined Alabama from using that map, finding it violated Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment. State officials then asked the Supreme Court to pause, or stay, that injunction while their appeal proceeded. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, granted the stay. The Court…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Whitton v. Dixon

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Jun 1, 2026

Published

In Whitton v. Dixon, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit's decision denying habeas corpus relief to a Florida death row inmate. The core reasoning was that the appeals court improperly relied on post-trial DNA evidence, which was never presented to the jury, when evaluating whether a witness's false testimony could have affected the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court held that only evidence actually before the jury is relevant to that inquiry.

Gary Richard Whitton was convicted of murder by a Florida jury and sentenced to death. At trial, the prosecution relied in part on a jailhouse informant named Jake Ozio, who testified he heard Whitton confess to the crime. Ozio also testified he had no prior criminal history, but that was false. The State possessed Ozio's juvenile records at the time, which showed charges including assault and burglary. Whitton argued this violated his due process rights under the Supreme…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

AT&T Inc. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Nov 5, 2018

Published · 139 S. Ct. 454

The Supreme Court denied AT&T Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, would have granted the petition but only to vacate the lower court's judgment and send the cases back with instructions to dismiss them as moot. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh did not participate in the decision.

AT&T Inc. asked the Supreme Court to review a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving the Federal Communications Commission. The Supreme Court declined to take up the case, meaning the D.C. Circuit's decision remained in place without the Supreme Court weighing in on the merits. Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, disagreed with simply leaving the denial at that. They would have granted the petition, but their stated…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Ctia-The Wireless Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Nov 5, 2018

Published · 139 S. Ct. 454

In Ctia-The Wireless Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 139 S. Ct. 454, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning it declined to hear the case that had come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Three justices, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, would have granted the petition but only to vacate the lower court judgment and send the case back with instructions to dismiss it as moot. The Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh did…

The case arrived at the Supreme Court after proceedings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The wireless industry association sought Supreme Court review of that lower court's decision by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is a formal request asking the Court to take up the case. The Supreme Court declined to grant that petition, which is the most common outcome when cases are brought to the Court. A denial of certiorari does not…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Real Estate Alliance Ltd. v. Move, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided Nov 5, 2018

Published · 139 S. Ct. 457

In Real Estate Alliance Ltd. v. Move, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear an appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, leaving the lower court's ruling in place. The denial of certiorari means the Supreme Court did not find grounds to take up the case. No opinion or reasoning was provided by the Court, as is standard when certiorari is denied.

The Supreme Court's action here was a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning the losing party asked the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision and the Court declined to do so. When the Supreme Court denies certiorari, it does not issue a ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute. It simply means the justices chose not to take the case, and the lower court's decision stands as the final word. Because the source text provides only the one-line…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Becky Joseph v. Thomas-Grace Const. Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 24, 2026

Published

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Thomas-Grace Construction Inc. Becky Joseph, a former Lead Installer, had sued her employer alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under federal and Michigan civil rights law. The appellate court agreed with the lower court that TGC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Becky Joseph was hired by Thomas-Grace Construction Inc. as a Lead Installer in November 2022 and was assigned to a project in Las Vegas beginning in January 2023. From early in her employment, Joseph had repeated conflicts with her supervisors, including Gary Raney and later Joe Cikotte. She complained that supervisors were condescending and dismissive, and she sent several emails and texts to TGC management expressing frustration, at times in confrontational language. She…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Jennifer Audette v. Lake of the Woods County

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 24, 2026

Published

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling against Robert and Jennifer Audette, who sued Lake of the Woods County under the Americans with Disabilities Act after the county denied their after-the-fact permit for a large concrete ramp they built without prior approval. The court found that the Audettes had missed their opportunity to properly request a disability accommodation by violating the county's instructions and proceeding with construction without going…

Robert and Jennifer Audette own a lakefront home in Minnesota. In 2020, Robert met with county land and water planning officials who told him he could pour limited concrete on the property without a permit, as long as it stayed on existing fill and remained under 400 square feet. Without obtaining county approval, the Audettes built a 12-foot-wide concrete ramp from their property down to the lake's ordinary high-water mark. A subsequent inspection found approximately 2,122…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

United States v. Gregory Berry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 23, 2026

Published

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Gregory Berry's 48-month prison sentence after he pleaded guilty to making a false statement when buying a firearm, specifically lying about being a marijuana user. Berry argued the district court made factual errors by treating him as an unlicensed firearms dealer and imposed an unreasonable sentence, but the appeals court found neither claim persuasive. The court ruled the district court reasonably concluded Berry operated a commercial firearms…

Gregory Berry was convicted of making a false statement when acquiring a firearm, specifically denying he was a marijuana user on federal paperwork. Between 2018 and 2024, he had purchased more than 180 firearms from licensed dealers in Arkansas. Over 100 guns were found at his home and in his vehicle, many with price tags attached. Evidence on his phone showed he had sold firearms at auction, receiving a check for nearly $54,000 labeled 'Gun Auction.' Thirteen of the guns…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

La Belle Dairy, LLC v. Sharpe Holdings, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 23, 2026

Published

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court order preventing Sharpe Holdings from evicting La Belle Dairy from thousands of acres of leased farmland in Northeast Missouri. The court first determined it had jurisdiction, finding that the order labeled a 'temporary restraining order' actually functioned as a preliminary injunction because it had no expiration date and lasted more than 28 days. The court then rejected Sharpe's argument that it was denied due process, finding…

La Belle Dairy leases thousands of acres of forage land in Northeast Missouri from Sharpe Holdings to grow feed for its cattle and manage waste under a government-mandated nutrient management plan. After La Belle Dairy sued Sharpe for breach of their lease, Sharpe threatened to evict the dairy. La Belle Dairy asked the district court for emergency relief, and the court issued an order, labeled a 'temporary restraining order,' blocking Sharpe from evicting or interfering with…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

RMS v. Commerce Bank

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 23, 2026

Published

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision denying Revenue Management Solutions a preliminary injunction against Commerce Bank. RMS had accused Commerce of breaching their software licensing contract and misappropriating trade secrets by developing a competing product called RemitConnect 2.0. The appeals court agreed with the lower court that RMS did not demonstrate it was likely to suffer irreparable harm, which is a required element for obtaining this type…

The central question in this case was whether Revenue Management Solutions (RMS) was entitled to a preliminary injunction, an emergency court order, to stop Commerce Bank from using software called RemitConnect 2.0 while the underlying lawsuit was pending. RMS claimed Commerce violated their 2014 licensing agreement by reverse engineering and copying RMS's healthcare revenue management software platform to build its own competing product, and also misappropriated RMS's trade…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

BSI Group LLC v. Solid Financial Technologies

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 22, 2026

Published

The Eighth Circuit reversed a district court order that allowed merits discovery and trial preparation to proceed at the same time as a jury trial on whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate their dispute. The court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitrability question to be resolved quickly and without delay, before merits proceedings move forward. Allowing parallel merits activity defeats the core purpose of arbitration, which is to resolve disputes…

This case arose after the Eighth Circuit had previously sent the case back to a district court in Arkansas for a narrow jury trial on one question: whether the plaintiffs had agreed to be bound by an arbitration clause through a website pop-up. On remand, the district court issued a scheduling order that required merits discovery and arbitrability discovery to happen at the same time, and it also set a merits trial to begin immediately after the jury decided the…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

United States v. Colar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided Jul 21, 2026

Published

The Ninth Circuit vacated Attila Colar's conviction on 44 federal counts related to alleged Paycheck Protection Program fraud and obstruction, and ordered a new trial. The court found that an alternate juror had expressed actual bias against Colar's defense, which centered on claims of racial and religious targeting by law enforcement. The district court abused its discretion by failing to investigate that bias promptly, conducting only a belated and inadequate inquiry, and…

Attila Colar, a Black Muslim man, was convicted by a jury on 44 federal counts including bank fraud, wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, obstruction, and witness tampering. His defense throughout trial was that law enforcement had targeted him because of his race and religion. Shortly after the jury was sworn in, an alternate juror told the court that he had a strong negative reaction to that defense theory and had already concluded it lacked substance and…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Faith Elsharkawy v. Chisago Lakes Board of Education

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided Jul 21, 2026

Published

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chisago Lakes School District and several school officials. Faith Elsharkawy had sued the district after her son J.L.E., a high school freshman with disabilities, died by suicide, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and Minnesota's wrongful death statute. The appeals court agreed with the district court that the evidence did not support…

This case arose after J.L.E., a student with multiple health and learning disabilities in the Chisago Lakes School District in Minnesota, died by suicide. His mother, Faith Elsharkawy, sued the school district and several school employees, claiming they violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Minnesota's wrongful death law. She argued the district failed to properly serve her son and that those failures contributed to his death. The…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Alfonya Mccray Jr v. State of Georgia

U.S. District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided Oct 23, 2026

In Alfonya McCray Jr. v. State of Georgia, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ordered that McCray's state criminal case be sent back to the Superior Court of Dougherty County. McCray, an inmate facing charges of aggravated assault and cruelty to children, had attempted to remove his state prosecution to federal court, claiming a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. The court found removal improper on both procedural and substantive grounds and…

Alfonya McCray Jr., a pro se inmate held at the Dougherty County Jail, filed a Notice of Removal seeking to transfer his pending state criminal case to federal court. He claimed that the Albany Police Department, the District Attorney's Office, the local judiciary, jail staff, and his own defense counsel were conspiring to violate his civil rights, and that he was a disabled person who was falsely incarcerated. The court first found that McCray's filing was procedurally…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Derrick Bernard Jackson v. State of Georgia, et al.

U.S. District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided Oct 23, 2026

In Jackson v. State of Georgia et al., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied a series of motions filed by Derrick Bernard Jackson, a prisoner challenging his May 2025 Baldwin County conviction, in which he repeatedly sought release on bail while his federal habeas corpus petition was pending. The court found that Jackson did not meet the legal requirements for bail pending habeas review, that a case he cited in support of his argument was…

Derrick Bernard Jackson filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 challenging his May 7, 2025 conviction in Baldwin County Superior Court, while being held at the Irwin County Detention Center in Ocilla, Georgia. Alongside his petition, he filed numerous motions asking the court to release him on bail while the habeas case was being resolved. A Magistrate Judge first denied those bail requests, finding he did not meet the required standard, and the…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Tavern L Downing Sr v. Enisha Bryant, et al.

U.S. District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided Oct 23, 2026

In Tavern L. Downing Sr. v. Enisha Bryant, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an order addressing Defendant Isaac Munguia's motion to set aside a Clerk's entry of default that had been entered on October 21, 2026. The court did not immediately rule on the motion but instead gave the pro se plaintiff twenty-one days to file a response. The court outlined the legal standard it would apply, which centers on whether there is 'good cause' to…

When a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond in time, the court clerk can enter a formal 'default' against that defendant, which is a legal recognition that they have not been participating in the case. After a default is entered, the court can then enter a default judgment, which would decide the case against the non-responding party without a full trial. In this case, a default was entered against Defendant Isaac Munguia, and he filed a motion asking the court to set it…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Jacob Hall v. Vanessa Fang

U.S. District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided Oct 23, 2026

In Hall v. Fang, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted plaintiff Jacob Hall's request to file his lawsuit without paying court fees, but immediately dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court found that Hall's two-sentence complaint, which alleged only that the defendant 'repeatedly participated in illegal activities' and asked the court to investigate her bank transactions, failed to meet the basic pleading requirements of Federal Rule…

Jacob Hall, representing himself without an attorney, filed a lawsuit on October 20, 2026 against Vanessa Fang. On the same day, he asked the court for permission to proceed without paying filing fees, a status known as 'in forma pauperis' or IFP. The court reviewed his financial affidavit and determined he could not afford the costs of litigation without undue hardship, so it granted that request. However, federal law requires courts to screen IFP complaints and dismiss…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Berkley Insurance Company v. Michael a Fennessy and Kenneth Lee Everett

U.S. District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided Oct 23, 2026

In Berkley Insurance Company v. Michael A. Fennessy and Kenneth Lee Everett, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted defendant Kenneth Lee Everett Jr.'s motion to set aside a clerk's entry of default and denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against him. The court found good cause to set aside the default because Everett's counsel made an honest mistake about the deadline to respond, Everett moved to correct the default within hours of…

The central question was whether a defendant who missed the deadline to respond to a lawsuit should be let back into the case, or whether a default judgment should be entered against him. The plaintiff, Berkley Insurance Company, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a court ruling about its insurance obligations. Defendant Everett acknowledged receipt of the lawsuit but did not file a timely answer, leading to a clerk's entry of default against him. The court applied…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.

Tina Ramirez v. Whitney Clark, et al.

U.S. District Court, M.D. Georgia

Decided Oct 22, 2026

In Ramirez v. Clark, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted pro se plaintiff Tina Ramirez permission to file her lawsuit without paying court fees, but found her complaint far too bare to proceed. The court gave Ramirez 21 days to file a rewritten complaint that actually explains who the 34 named defendants are, what they did, and which specific First Amendment rights they violated.

Tina Ramirez filed a lawsuit against 34 defendants, proceeding without an attorney and asking the court to waive filing fees because of poverty. The court found she qualified for that waiver, called proceeding in forma pauperis, because she reported monthly income of $499 and monthly expenses of $500. However, federal law requires a court to screen complaints filed by people who cannot pay fees. The court must dismiss any complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a real…

Advisory citizen opinion on this ruling, never a legal appeal or challenge. It does not form a citizen mandate. Public record, no accusation of wrongdoing.