Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Colombani
712 F.3d 6
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- This appeal challenges a district court order dismissing Commonwealth defendants (Governor, Attorney General, Planning Board official, and Office of Permit Management official) from a First Amendment case about Puerto Rico's CAL urbanization scheme.
- The CAL allows gated communities (urbanizations) with fences or gates, where access is controlled by homeowners' associations; municipalities approve permits and implement limitations, not the Commonwealth.
- Watchtower I upheld CAL on its face but remanded for municipalities/urbanizations to bring themselves into compliance where access impeded Jehovah's Witnesses.
- The remand led the district court to dismiss Commonwealth defendants as unnecessary for the current relief, while leaving open the possibility of future relief against them.
- Appellants appealed, but the district court's ongoing remedial proceedings and non-final nature of the Order raise jurisdictional questions under 28 U.S.C. §1291; the court ultimately dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The ruling is without prejudice to reentering the action if circumstances later require Commonwealth involvement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Order a final judgment under §1291? | Appellants contend the Order is a final judgment. | Commonwealth argues the Order is not final; proceedings continue. | No jurisdiction; Order not final under §1291. |
| Is the Order reviewable as a declaratory judgment? | Appellants claim declaratory-judgment review is automatic. | Declaratory Judgment Act does not create jurisdiction. | Not a basis for appellate jurisdiction. |
| Does the Order have the practical effect of denying injunctive relief, making it immediately appealable under §1292(a)(1)? | Appellants assert the Order effectively denied injunctive relief. | District court left open potential injunctive relief later; not an outright denial. | No; no immediate appeal under §1292(a)(1) because relief could be pursued later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales-Feliciano v. Rullan, 303 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (strict construction of §1292(a)(1))
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (requirements for immediate appeal from injunctive relief)
- Fideicomiso de la Tierra del Caño Martín Peña v. Fortuño, 582 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2009) (three-part test for immediate appeal under §1292(a)(1))
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (jurisdictional significance of filing a notice of appeal)
- United States v. Brooks, 145 F.3d 446 (1st Cir. 1998) (avoid concurrent jurisdiction and confusion in appeals)