Bent v. Talkin
280 F. Supp. 3d 107
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Bent, proceeding pro se, filed suit challenging a Supreme Court security/filing “Rule” that requires hand-delivered briefs to be left at an external police booth in unsealed containers.
- Bent alleges his petition to the Supreme Court (in a separate case) was intercepted, delayed, and possibly tampered with, and that the Rule lacks authority and conflicts with Supreme Court rules and the Constitution.
- Bent sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the Rule so his petition/rehearing could be properly filed.
- Defendants are the Marshal and the Chief of Police of the Supreme Court; they defended the Rule as a security measure and invoked jurisdictional limits.
- The district court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court may order relief altering how Supreme Court filings are handled | Bent: court can enjoin enforcement because Rule conflicts with Supreme Court rules and is unauthorized | Defs: district courts lack jurisdiction to compel the Supreme Court or its Clerk; supervisory authority is exclusive to the Supreme Court | Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; district courts may not compel Supreme Court Clerk |
| Validity of Rule under Constitution (Fourth/Fifth) | Bent: Rule violates constitutional rights and may result in tampering | Defs: Rule is a security measure; no evidence of constitutional violation; also immunity and jurisdictional barriers | Court: Plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success; claims not reach merits due to jurisdictional bar |
| Irreparable harm from compliance with the Rule | Bent: filing under Rule risks tampering and loss, causing irreparable injury | Defs: no evidence of tampering; security inspections legitimate; harms speculative | Court: Harm speculative, not sufficiently certain or beyond remediation; no irreparable injury shown |
| Balance of harms and public interest | Bent: personal filing rights outweigh enforcement of Rule | Defs: public safety and security of Supreme Court outweigh plaintiff's unproven harms | Court: Public safety interest substantial; balance and public interest weigh against injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (standard for preliminary injunction and discussion of Winter)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires likely success and irreparable harm)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction)
- In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (district courts may not compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (irreparable injury must be certain and beyond remediation)
- Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (movant must show all four preliminary-injunction factors together)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing)