XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism, law.court.federal   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   RICHMOND, Va. (CN) — A Fourth Circuit panel on Tuesday said a North   
   Carolina protester, who argued his stayed conviction should not block his   
   First Amendment case against the sheriff who arrested him, should not have   
   sought declaratory relief from the appeals court.   
      
   Maurice Wells Jr. was found guilty of two misdemeanor offenses — failure   
   to disperse and disorderly conduct — in a North Carolina district court   
   after a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest. He has appealed to the county’s   
   superior court, where his prior conviction is stayed and he is entitled to   
   an entirely new trial, but a new trial has yet to occur.   
      
   In 2023, Wells filed suit against Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson,   
   claiming Johnson arrested him over his political views and for using   
   profanity, which he claims is protected speech.   
      
   Wells argued that his stayed conviction means it should not be considered   
   probable cause for his arrest and that his First Amendment case should be   
   allowed to continue. Wells claimed Johnson selectively arrested him after   
   he failed to leave a park but did not arrest counterprotesters who also   
   did not cooperate with instructions to leave.   
      
   But a Fourth Circuit panel decided Wells lacks standing to seek a   
   declaratory judgment before an appellate court.   
      
   “Maurice Wells poses a tricky question,” U.S. Circuit Judge Julius   
   Richardson said in the 27-page opinion. “He got arrested at a protest in   
   2020 and was convicted of multiple charges in state court. He appealed the   
   conviction. And now, while the appeal remains pending, he sues to   
   challenge the arrest — claiming that it was retaliation for his speech.   
   His question for us is whether, in this situation, the state-court   
   conviction precludes a federal-court finding that the arrest violated his   
   rights."   
      
   But the federal courts are intended to “redress injuries,” or provide   
   remedy or compensation, the Donald Trump appointee said, and Wells is   
   seeking a judgment declaring his arrest unconstitutional without saying   
   how it would resolve his arrest or help him in other ways, including   
   warding off future arrest or prosecution.   
      
   The panel vacated the lower court’s decision that originally dismissed   
   Wells’ case, finding that the federal courts lack jurisdiction. It   
   remanded the case and ordered it back to state court.   
      
   Both parties now agree the case doesn’t belong in federal court.   
      
   “Wells’ arrest is a cognizable injury, and Johnson caused it. His   
   prosecution is cognizable, too, assuming that Wells could trace it to   
   Johnson. But to get a declaration that Johnson violated his First   
   Amendment rights, Wells needs something more,” Richardson said. “He must   
   show that ‘the remedy he sought ... can redress the constitutional   
   violation that [he] alleges occurred.’”   
      
   But Richardson said Wells cannot get constitutionally adequate redress   
   through his request.   
      
   Wells could get redress from prosecution by getting a declaration to fend   
   off being prosecuted in the future. However, Wells has “sued the wrong   
   defendant,” Richardson said, because it is North Carolina, not Johnson or   
   Alamance County, that is prosecuting him and would prosecute him again in   
   the future.   
      
   Wells could likewise not get relief through preventing a future arrest   
   over protesting because it would be an “offensive, rather than defensive,   
   use of a declaratory judgment,” and Wells has not given the court reason   
   to believe he will protest again in the same place or be arrested again by   
   Johnson.   
      
   Richardson wrote that the redress also cannot address the past injury —   
   Wells’ 2020 arrest — as declaratory judgment is “a preclusive weapon that   
   either deters litigation or helps win it.” Plaintiffs who have suffered   
   injury need compensation, and a declaratory judgment is not compensatory,   
   he said.   
      
   “Without some unusual situation where the plaintiff can show that he needs   
   the preclusive effect of a declaration even though the injury he complains   
   of has already occurred, a declaration aimed into the past would be only   
   hortatory — a judicial announcement that a past event broke the law — and   
   therefore provide no redress,” Richardson said.   
      
   While the Fourth Circuit has never ruled out the possibility that a   
   plaintiff can redress a past injury by seeking a declaration alone, the   
   court has “serious doubts that this works,” Richardson said, and the   
   plaintiff would still need to show the preclusion would help redress his   
   injury in future litigation.   
      
   But Wells filed because North Carolina’s statute of limitations had almost   
   run out, and as it has expired, he won’t be able to bring a new action,   
   and there wouldn’t be a preclusive effect from a declaratory judgment, he   
   added. Wells had already waited nearly four years for his superior court   
   case to be heard before he filed his First Amendment case.   
      
   Johnson wanted the lower court’s decision upheld, saying Wells’   
   convictions invalidate his lawsuit, even if the conviction is later   
   vacated. The fact that Wells was convicted in one of the state’s district   
   courts shows he had probable cause to arrest him, he said. Wells wanted   
   the order reversed and the case remanded so it could continue.   
      
   Wells’ claims will likely continue in a superior court in North Carolina.   
      
   Counsel for Wells declined to comment on the panel's decision. Johnson and   
   his attorney did not reply to a request for comment.   
      
   U.S. Circuit Court Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush appointee, and   
   Senior U.S. Circuit Court Judge Henry Floyd, a Barack Obama appointee,   
   also served on the panel and joined Richardson’s opinion.   
      
   https://www.courthousenews.com/no-redress-no-suit-fourth-circuit-sends-   
   blm-protester-packing/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)