11th Circuit Rejects Schindlers’ Appeal
The Eleventh Circuit has rejected the Schindlers’ appeal, in a decision you can read here.
The decision purports to address the “state action” issue I discussed earlier, and in doing so uses what I believe to be imprecise language:
Plaintiffs argue that Judge Greer is a state actor simply because he is a state judge. That does not follow. See Paisey v. Vitale, 807 F.2d 889, 893–94 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Obviously the mere fact that Judge Vitale is named as a defendant does not create the requisite state involvement,” because “[p]roviding a neutral forum for adjudication is an essentially neutral act.”).
I’m not sure how the appellate judges square that with the language from their own circuit’s 1992 decision that I mentioned in my earlier post. That case, Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127 (11th Cir. 1992), states:
A county probate judge clearly is a state actor.
I think they mean to say that the involvement of a state judge does not automatically create state action — not that a state judge is not a state actor. That continues to strike me as an illogical statement.
Anyway, this is no surprise.
[…] here.) The panel decision of the 11th Circuit affirming the denial of the injunction. (Here is my initial post on that decision.) The 11th Circuit̵ […]
Patterico's Pontifications » A Legal Argument Why the Federal Courts Should Have Granted the Schiavo Injunction (0c6a63) — 4/17/2005 @ 11:39 pmAs best I follow that, if I as an individual have a certain right not available to the state (insert bad example – I have the right to engage in racial or religious discrimination when selecting a marriage partner), I can still rely on the state to help me enforce that right, even though the state lacks it.
As I understood it in this case, the issue arose with the religious observance question. The state can not deny Ms. Schiavo her right to observe. However, her guardian can choose, on her behalf, not to be observant. And a court order upholding that does not represent religious discrimination by the state.
Well, I am not an attorney (was it *that* obvious?)
Have a great weekend.
Tom Maguire (1d5378) — 3/26/2005 @ 6:11 amOn a side note, you will be intrigued by this catch-up Michael-basher front paged on the Saturday Times.
Tom Maguire (1d5378) — 3/26/2005 @ 8:31 amJust when you thought you heard it all… Some lady interviewed on the radio was advocating that everyone go out and do a living will, giving decision rights to their children and parents, leaving their spouse out.
So what this one person learns from this is all husbands are jerks!
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 3/26/2005 @ 8:59 amI think there is more language in the Harvey case after the part you quote that makes it support the court’s position. Sorry I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I thought I would point the other intrepid law student commenters (with lexis access) in that direction.
Matto Ichiban (c076da) — 3/26/2005 @ 11:07 amI can’t get the PDF to load up–but does it address whether the law enforcement agents that are enforcing the court’s order constitute state actors?
I.E.–by preventing people from getting to Schiavo to administer food/water/feeding tube, aren’t they in a somewhat different position than is Greer insofar as being a state actor is concerned?
Aren’t they closer to the deprivation such that a claim might be valid?
Christopher Cross (09c7b0) — 3/26/2005 @ 11:49 amI think there is more language in the Harvey case after the part you quote that makes it support the court’s position.
On the issue of “state action” I think you’re right. On the issue of the judge being a state actor, I don’t think so.
Patterico (756436) — 3/26/2005 @ 1:06 pm