Top Law Schools

I just took the Civ Pro final and this multiple choice question came up (roughly as follows):

The second and fourth circuits have recently ruled that prisoners may have access to the internet, while the eighth and ninth circuits have recently ruled that prisoners may not have internet access. The issue has not been decided by the first circuit. Prisoner Joe brings a suit in a district court in the first circuit in order to get access to the internet. The defendants file a 12(b)(6) motion and a motion for sanctions under Rule 11.

The first four answer choices were some combination of: The court should grant/deny the rule 12(b)(6) motion and grant/deny the Rule 11 sanctions.

The fifth answer choice was: The court should deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions and hear arguments on whether to allow internet access for prisoners.

What do you guys think?

johnstorey wrote:What do you guys think?

I think you should consider deleting your post since the combination of your potentially-identifying username and content that you are probably bound by honor code to not reveal could get you in a deep load of trouble.

johnstorey wrote:I just took the Civ Pro final and this multiple choice question came up (roughly as follows):

The second and fourth circuits have recently ruled that prisoners may have access to the internet, while the eighth and ninth circuits have recently ruled that prisoners may not have internet access. The issue has not been decided by the first circuit. Prisoner Joe brings a suit in a district court in the first circuit in order to get access to the internet. The defendants file a 12(b)(6) motion and a motion for sanctions under Rule 11.

The first four answer choices were some combination of: The court should grant/deny the rule 12(b)(6) motion and grant/deny the Rule 11 sanctions.

The fifth answer choice was: The court should deny the motion for Rule 11 sanctions and hear arguments on whether to allow internet access for prisoners.

What do you guys think?

I think you should stop thinking about a test you already took.

Since it is obviously a controversial issue, i believe the court should deny both.

mikeytwoshoes wrote:I think you should stop thinking about a test you already took.

Agreed... but based on those facts, I would grant the 12(b)(6) motion (what's his claim?) and the sanctions (claim not warranted by law).

Then again, I haven't started studying Civ Pro yet because my final is in two weeks, so what do I know?

edit: Well maybe not the sanctions. I have no idea. Don't listen to me.

Just took a final? Step 1 - put away all the notes for that class, Step 2 - go out and get a beer/watch a movie, Step 3 - forget about Civ Pro.

Just move on. Seriously.

Blindmelon wrote:Just took a final? Step 1 - [strike]put away[/strike] burn all the notes for that class, Step 2 - go out and get a beer/watch a movie, Step 3 - forget about Civ Pro.

FTFY.

under Conley, the only way to get a 12(b)(6) motion is for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted... There must be no set of facts that the court can imagine that would prove P's claim; obviously, since two other courts have ruled on this issue, there is a set of facts that would allow the prisoner to be granted relief. In addition, under rule 11(b)(2), he seems to be making a nonfrivilous argument to establish new law... I can't imagine how this question would be anything other than to deny both motions unless I am missing something.

mistergoft wrote:[strike]under Conley, the only way to get a 12(b)(6) motion is for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted... There must be no set of facts that the court can imagine that would prove P's claim; obviously, since two other courts have ruled on this issue, there is a set of facts that would allow the prisoner to be granted relief. In addition, under rule 11(b)(2), he seems to be making a nonfrivilous argument to establish new law... I can't imagine how this question would be anything other than to deny both motions unless I am missing something.[/strike]

Twombly and Iqbal overturned Conley. Oops.

vanwinkle wrote:

mistergoft wrote:[strike]under Conley, the only way to get a 12(b)(6) motion is for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted... There must be no set of facts that the court can imagine that would prove P's claim; obviously, since two other courts have ruled on this issue, there is a set of facts that would allow the prisoner to be granted relief. In addition, under rule 11(b)(2), he seems to be making a nonfrivilous argument to establish new law... I can't imagine how this question would be anything other than to deny both motions unless I am missing something.[/strike]

Twombly and Iqbal overturned Conley. Oops.

Lol @ thinking that under twombly there is any concrete "right or wrong" answer. If you're going to analyze this under twombly, the judge would have to decide, using his judicial discretion, whether or not it was "plausible" that D's claim was valid. How can you possibly answer a multiple choice question on that?

mistergoft wrote:Lol @ thinking that under twombly there is any concrete "right or wrong" answer. If you're going to analyze this under twombly, the judge would have to decide, using his judicial discretion, whether or not it was "plausible" that D's claim was valid. How can you possibly answer a multiple choice question on that?

This is the correct analysis, and why OP is pretty well fucked no matter what answer he chose.

vanwinkle wrote:

mistergoft wrote:Lol @ thinking that under twombly there is any concrete "right or wrong" answer. If you're going to analyze this under twombly, the judge would have to decide, using his judicial discretion, whether or not it was "plausible" that D's claim was valid. How can you possibly answer a multiple choice question on that?

This is the correct analysis, and why OP is pretty well fucked no matter what answer he chose.

You take your Con Law exam yet Van?

mistergoft wrote:You take your Con Law exam yet Van?

No, that hell comes on Tuesday. Holy shit, that's a week from today. I'm not ready!! I'm too young to die!!!

vanwinkle wrote:

johnstorey wrote:What do you guys think?

I think you should consider deleting your post since the combination of your potentially-identifying username and content that you are probably bound by honor code to not reveal could get you in a deep load of trouble.

I think it's either deny both or the fifth answer. For the 12(b)(6) analysis, the court must first determine that there is a possible claim before deciding that the facts as alleged could fit within the contours of that claim. If the circuit has not yet decided whether denying Internet access to prisoner satisfies the elements of a Section 1983 or Bivens claim as a matter of law, then the circuit should "hear argument" (i.e., determine whether the facts alleged would entitle the prisoner to relief).

Rule 11 = definitely no on the merits. Also no for not complying with procedural requirement of 11(c)(2).

vanwinkle wrote:

mistergoft wrote:You take your Con Law exam yet Van?

No, that hell comes on Tuesday. Holy shit, that's a week from today. I'm not ready!! I'm too young to die!!!

*died yesterday*

No sanctions, no 12(b)(6). Simple policy answer: we want to encourage bringing novel legal claims. Plus, 1st Cir. would love to have a voice in an inter-circuit conflict like this that's ripe for a Sup. Ct. who (in the past 20 years) loves to harmonize federal laws (I'm assuming this concerns a federal law). There is a strong case for uniformity.

reading this shit makes me want to reconsider going to law school. lmao.

i know dude, I think i really have no freaking clue what i got myself into going to law school. My answer to the question is that I plead the 5th

If you waltzed into an organic chemistry forum prior to starting undergrad, hopefully you'd expect to not have a damn clue what was going on. Same same for civ pro and law school. It's bad, but it's made impossibly worse by having no background at all.

disco_barred wrote:If you waltzed into an organic chemistry forum prior to starting undergrad, hopefully you'd expect to not have a damn clue what was going on. Same same for civ pro and law school. It's bad, but it's made impossibly worse by having no background at all.

i would never be found in an orgo classroom though, that is why this sucks. Plus i took one law class in college, got a C-.

jnorsky wrote:

disco_barred wrote:If you waltzed into an organic chemistry forum prior to starting undergrad, hopefully you'd expect to not have a damn clue what was going on. Same same for civ pro and law school. It's bad, but it's made impossibly worse by having no background at all.

i would never be found in an orgo classroom though, that is why this sucks. Plus i took one law class in college, got a C-.

What is this, a confessional?

pretty sure its a forum for students going/wanting to go to top law schools

jnorsky wrote:pretty sure its a forum for students going/wanting to go to top law schools

Oh sweet thanks for clearing that up

jnorsky wrote:pretty sure its a forum for students going/wanting to go to top law schools

You mean there's no porn here?