Patrick Thomson v. Luke Drummond
16-4260
| 3rd Cir. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Patrick Thomson, a convicted sex offender on parole in New Jersey, was instructed by counsel to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege during parole-revocation meetings after counsel was barred from two meetings.
- Parole officers warned Thomson that continued refusal to answer questions could lead to arrest for violating parole conditions.
- Thomson sued the parole officer(s) and the New Jersey State Parole Board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the ADA, seeking declaratory relief and injunctions to: (1) prohibit prosecution for invoking the Fifth Amendment, (2) bar NJSPB employees from excluding his counsel from parole meetings, and (3) prevent questioning of Thomson absent his counsel.
- He moved for a preliminary injunction the same day he filed the complaint; the District Court denied the motion in a short order stating lack of jurisdiction and immunity, and in a letter said ripeness, qualified immunity, and Eleventh Amendment concerns supported denial.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded the denial of the preliminary injunction because the District Court failed to state the factual findings and legal conclusions required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), leaving the appellate court unable to review for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court properly explained denial of preliminary injunction under Rule 52(a)(2) | Thomson argued the injunction was necessary to protect his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights and that he faced a real threat of arrest for invoking the privilege | Defendants argued jurisdictional and immunity defenses (ripeness, qualified immunity, Eleventh Amendment) supported denial | Court held District Court failed to articulate findings and conclusions as required by Rule 52(a)(2); remanded for fuller explanation |
| Whether the motion was ripe for adjudication (pre-enforcement challenge to threatened prosecution) | Thomson argued threatened prosecution for asserting the Fifth Amendment made the dispute ripe for pre-enforcement review | District Court suggested ripeness concerns but provided no analysis tying ripeness to each requested form of relief | Court found District Court’s ripeness reference ambiguous and required clarification on which claims/relief ripeness applied to |
| Whether immunity doctrines barred injunctive relief | Thomson maintained injunctive relief can proceed against state actors despite some immunities; qualified immunity not plainly applicable at pleading stage | District Court cited immunity broadly; unclear whether it meant Eleventh Amendment, qualified immunity, or another doctrine | Court explained Eleventh Amendment generally does not bar equitable relief and qualified immunity is an affirmative defense; remand needed to identify which immunity and the factual/legal basis |
| Whether preliminary-injunction factors were addressed (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest) | Thomson argued he satisfied the four Winter/Reilly factors | District Court concluded Thomson failed to meet these factors but did not set out findings | Court required the District Court to state factual findings and legal conclusions showing how Thomson failed each preliminary-injunction element |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (establishes the four-factor standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discusses Rule 52(a)(2) requirement for findings on interlocutory injunctions)
- Feldman v. Ariz. Sec’y of State’s Office, 843 F.3d 366 (9th Cir. 2016) (concludes district courts must state findings supporting denial of interlocutory injunction)
- Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190 (explains appellate review requires clear district-court reasoning)
- Koslow v. Pennsylvania, 302 F.3d 161 (clarifies Eleventh Amendment does not bar injunctive relief against state actors)
- Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (qualified immunity is an affirmative defense grounded in objective legal reasonableness)
- Ball v. Famiglio, 726 F.3d 448 (qualified-immunity defense may be apparent on the face of the complaint only in limited circumstances)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (threatened prosecution can create a ripe controversy for pre-enforcement review)