“…the district court concluded that Plaintiff did not show that the United States acted in callous disregard of his constitutional rights...No party contests the district court’s finding in this regard. The absence of this “indispensab[le]” factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here. Chapman, 559 F.2d at 406. But for the sake of completeness, we consider the remaining factors.”
Absolutely epic, isn't it?!! And thank you for fitting an analysis into your busy, busy workday, Mic.
What happens now that Judge Cannon has revised her order striking the parts that the 11th circuit pointed out? Does that make the appellate moot and now cannot be appealed to the SC by the plantiff?
Re:
“…the district court concluded that Plaintiff did not show that the United States acted in callous disregard of his constitutional rights...No party contests the district court’s finding in this regard. The absence of this “indispensab[le]” factor in the Richey analysis is reason enough to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in exercising equitable jurisdiction here. Chapman, 559 F.2d at 406. But for the sake of completeness, we consider the remaining factors.”
Absolutely epic, isn't it?!! And thank you for fitting an analysis into your busy, busy workday, Mic.
What an epic slap down!
What happens now that Judge Cannon has revised her order striking the parts that the 11th circuit pointed out? Does that make the appellate moot and now cannot be appealed to the SC by the plantiff?