Notable Petitions

A petition recently filed in Arctic Slope Native Association v. Sebelius, from the Federal Circuit, raises a question about deadlines for class action lawsuits against the government.  And an unrelated petition in Skinner v. Department of Justice, from the D.C. Circuit, involves a civil suit against the government by a prisoner challenging the legitimacy of penalties levied on him in prison for alleged misconduct there.

We also note the filing of a new Akin Gump petition, Pirate Investor v. Securities and Exchange Commission.

None of the briefs in opposition in these cases have yet been filed.  The petitions and the questions presented in them follow the jump.

Title: Arctic Slope Native Association v. Sebelius
Docket: 09-1172
Question Presented: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the filing of a class action against the government does not toll the deadline for asserted class members to exhaust their administrative remedies.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

Title: Skinner v. Department of Justice
Docket: 09-1188
Question Presented: Whether a prisoner’s federal damages claims challenging disciplinary segregation and the loss of visitation rights and commissary privileges resulting from certain alleged prisoner misconduct — claims that otherwise could proceed without exhaustion of habeas remedies — nonetheless must be dismissed in favor of habeas because prison officials also chose to revoke good-time credits based on the same incident, and any challenge to that revocation would lie exclusively in habeas.

• Opinion below (DC Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari

The following petition was filed by Akin Gump, and is noted without regard to its worthiness or likelihood of being granted:

Title: Pirate Investor v. Securities and Exchange Commission
Docket: 09-1176
Question Presented: Whether Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 – which prohibit false statements “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security” — apply to speech by a party that offers no personalized investment advice, does not trade in the relevant stock, and owes no applicable fiduciary duty; and (2) whether such a case may proceed without the protections of the First Amendment, such as independent appellate review of factual findings, a showing of reckless disregard for the truth based on clear and convincing evidence, and a prohibition on sweeping prior restraints on speech.

• Opinion below (4th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari