NCJ Number
140869
Journal
Texas Police Journal Volume: 40 Issue: 12 Dated: (January 1993) Pages: 5-7
Date Published
1993
Length
3 pages
Annotation
While discovery is generally allowed in civil litigation in U.S. District Courts, it has become more limited with the implementation of so-called fast track case management, which is used, for example, in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Abstract
Under this type of case management, the timing and extent of permissible pretrial procedures is more restrictive. This author maintains that in damage suits prosecuted under the Federal Civil Rights Act, plaintiffs are virtually unable to secure discovery to support their cases because defense attorneys file motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim or for summary judgment. Several recent appeals and Supreme Court decisions have held that a plaintiff, before filing a damage suit under the Act, must have the facts to support his claim, must assert these facts in the complaint, cannot rely upon conclusory allegations, and cannot get discovery after filing suit if the defendant moves for dismissal under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Other appellate decisions have created requirements for the complainant to have facts in the form of legally competent evidence to support every single element of at least one claim to survive summary judgment dismissal. The author notes that proper use of summary judgment and dismissal procedures can spare the parties and judiciary expensive litigation and could help eliminate docket backlogs. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to a case which may provide further insight on how the non-discovery rule in cases prosecuted under the Federal Civil Rights Act will be affected.