State e-Filing System; Sovereign Immunity
Where a national news service sued state officials under the First Amendment after the state changed to an e-filing system that inhibits same-day access to newly filed petitions, the suit is not barred by sovereign immunity, and the district court erred by abstaining from the matter since the case concerns who gets to see the newly filed petitions and when, and neither of those questions is the subject of any pending state court proceedings, so the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Judgment is reversed and remanded.
Adequacy; Good Faith Exception
Where a defendant argued that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a trailer that he occupied, the search warrant adequately described the items to be seized from the residence, and the district court did not err in concluding that even if the warrant was deficient, the search was still valid under the good-faith exception as the warrant application was neither deceptive nor deficient.
Judgment is affirmed.
Where a defendant challenged his sentence in a drug case, the plea agreement included an appeal waiver that was valid and enforceable, so the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal is dismissed.
Clean Water Act
Consent Decree; Motion for Judicial Resolution
Defendant city appealed from the district court’s orders in response to defendant’s motion for judicial resolution. Defendant entered a consent decree with the EPA and the state of Arkansas, which imposed municipal sewer system improvement requirements upon defendant to bring the system in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Unable to resolve their interpretation disputes over the consent decree, defendant moved for judicial resolution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court’s conclusion that the decree required several severe structural defects to be repaired by a certain date.
Where the consent decree expressly stated that its terms would control over any conflicting terms in any appendices, district court did not err in concluding that defects were subject to repair within four years of discovery under the provision of the decree, rather than under a continuous monitoring-and-maintenance scheme as laid out in an appendix.
Judgment is affirmed.