Danley v. Allen, 06-14466.
| Decision Date | 08 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-14466.,No. 06-14808.,No. 06-15580 Non-Argument Calendar.,06-14466.,06-14808.,06-15580 Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Citation | 480 F.3d 1090 |
| Parties | Kevin DANLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruby ALLEN, et al., Defendants, Jackie Rikard, Ronnie Willis, Ruby Allyn, Defendants-Appellants. Kevin Danley, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steve Woods, Defendant-Appellant. Kevin Danley, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeff Wood, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Bart Harmon, Daryl L. Masters, Webb & Eley, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Henry F. Sherrod, III, Henry F. Sherrod, III, P.C., Florence, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before HULL, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, the district court summarily denied defendant-appellants' motions to dismiss plaintiff-appellee Kevin Danley's second amended complaint. Danley contends that he was subjected to excessive force and then denied medical treatment when, as a pretrial detainee, detention officers sprayed him with pepper spray. The defendant-appellants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Danley's claims. The district court entered one-sentence orders denying each of the various motions to dismiss. The district court's one-sentence orders perfunctorily stated that the district court had considered the motions and was "of the opinion defendants' motions are due to be denied." The orders are devoid of any facts and any legal analysis.
Many times, and in many contexts, this Court has admonished district courts that their orders should contain sufficient explanations of their rulings so as to provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate review. See Clay v. Equifax, Inc., 762 F.2d 952, 957-58 (11th Cir.1985) (); see also Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.3d 1137, 1151 (11th Cir.2006) (); In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315, 1317 (11th Cir. 2003) (); Broadwater v. United States, 292 F.3d 1302, 1303 (11th Cir.2002) ().
In this case, we conclude that the district court's one-sentence summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
League of Women Voters of Fla., Inc. v. Lee
...in meaningful appellate review.’ " FTC v. On Point Cap. Partners, LLC , 17 F.4th 1066, 1080 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Danley v. Allen , 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007) ). Although Rule 52(a) "requires specific findings of fact, it does not require a finding on every contention raised b......
-
Yates v. Pinellas Hematology & Oncology, P.A.
...reasoning is arbitrary and therefore unreviewable by us because we have no standards by which to evaluate it. See Danley v. Allen , 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007) ("Many times, and in many contexts, this Court has admonished district courts that their orders should contain sufficient ......
-
Lopez v. United States
...of their rulings so as to provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate review.' Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007). That principle, however, does not prohibit a district court from incorporating a party's arguments as the basis and explan......
-
Higdon v. Judge Gail S. Tusan
...remand contained a sufficient explanation of the rulings in both cases to allow for meaningful appellate review. See Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir. 2007) (instructing district courts to provide sufficient explanations of their rulings so we can engage in meaningful appellat......