The Supreme Court began its November argument calendar on Monday, October 30, with three cases from the Sixth Circuit -- Osborn v. Haley, Case No. 05-593, and consolidated argument in Jones v. Bock, Case No. 05-7058, and Williams v. Overton, Case No. 05-7142.
With respect to the first argument, the Sixth Circuit had issued its opinion in Osborn v. Haley, 422 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2005), on September 8, 2005, in a case originally filed in the Western District of Kentucky. A full description of the factual background of the case appears in an argument preview at Scotusblog from Friday, Oct. 27, here. Ross Runkel's blog, LawMemo, has a post about Osbornhere and a prior commentary about the case here.
As explained in greater detail in the cited posts, when a federal employee is sued in a civil action in state court, the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. 2679(d)(2), authorizes the Attorney General to remove the action to federal court, and to substitute the United States as the party defendant in place of the employee, by certifying that "the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose." The petition for certiorari had presented the following two questions:
1. Whether the Westfall Act authorizes the Attorney General to certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident solely by denying that such incident occurred at all.
2. Whether the Westfall Act forbids a district court to remand an action to state court upon concluding that the Attorney General's purported certification was not authorized by the Act.
In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court directed the parties to brief and argue the following additional question:
3. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).
Petitioner's merits brief can be found here and its reply brief here. The Government's merits brief is here. The merits brief of Respondents Gay Verdi and Land Between the Lakes Association is here.
Scotusblog has a recap of the argument here. The Court's transcript of the argument appears here.
The second, 11:00 a.m. consolidated argument in Jones v. Bock and Williams v. Overton involved the scope of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A third Sixth Circuit case, Walton v. Bouchard, was joined with Williams at the Sixth Circuit and was also argued to the Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of each case for failing to satisfy the exhaustion requirement in three unreported opinions. See Jones v. Bock, 135 Fed. App. 837 (6th Cir. 6-15-2005); Williams v. Overton, 136 Fed. App. 859 (6th Cir. 6-22-2005); Walton v. Bouchard, 136 Fed. App. 846 (6th Cir. 6-17-2005).
Questions Presented in Case No. 05-7058:
1. Whether satisfaction of the PLRA' s exhaustion requirement is a prerequisite to a prisoner's federal civil rights suit such that the prisoner must allege in his complaint how he exhausted his administrative remedies (or attach proof of exhaustion to the complaint), or instead, whether non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by the defense.
2. Whether the PLRA prescribes a "total exhaustion" rule that requires a federal district court to dismiss a prisoner's federal civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies whenever there is a single unexhausted claim, despite the presence of other exhausted claims.
Questions Presented in Case No. 05-7142:
1. Whether the PLRA requires a prisoner to name a particular defendant in his or her administrative grievance in order to exhaust his or her administrative remedies as to that defendant and to preserve his or her right to sue them.
2. Whether the PLRA prescribes a "total exhaustion" rule that requires a federal district court to dismiss a prisoner's federal civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies whenever there is a single unexhausted claim, despite the presence of other exhausted claims.
Scotusblog's preview of the argument appears here. The parties' briefs may be found here. LawMemo's post on the cases is here. The Court's transcript of the oral argument is located here.