Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration, Etc. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1973)

Ad Hoc Committee also includes the following language: "[I]t would be both unprecedented and unseemly for a federal judge to attempt a reordering of state priorities.” 488 F.2d at 1245-46.

Cf. Ad Hoc Comm., 488 F.2d at 1244 (rejecting per se rule under Federal Constitution for bounding decision-making delay in state court civil cases); cf. also, Los Angeles County Bar Ass’n v. March Fong Eu, 979 F.2d 697 , 705-06 (9th Cir.1992) (conducting ad hoc inquiry to determine whether pretrial delay “exceed[ed] constitutional boundaries”).

When the courts are asked to reshape other government institutions, the “task [is not] to be undertaken lightly.” Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241, 1244 (1st Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 986 , 94 S.Ct. 2389 , 40 L.Ed.2d 763 (1974).

See Los Angeles County Bar Ass’n, 979 F.2d at 706 (“Notwithstanding the fundamental rights of access to the courts, [the plaintiff] does not cite, nor has our independent research revealed, any decision recognizing a right to judicial determination of a civil claim with *1167 in a prescribed period of time.”); Ad Hoc Committee, 488 F.2d at 1245 (“To extrapolate from court statistics a picture of those cases where inability to obtain a trial has reached due process is difficu…

See, e.g., Schroder v. Bush, 263 F.3d 1169, 1174 (10th Cir.2001) (“Appellants’ request that courts maintain market conditions, oversee trade agreements, and control currency ... would require courts to make [non-justiciable] policy determinations....”); Ad Hoc Comm. on Judicial Admin. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241, 1245 (1st Cir.1973) (finding non-justiciable a policy determination regarding the financing of the judicial branches, an issue that has “been le…

It is not this Court’s proper role to supervise, or to be cast “in the role of receiver for a state judicial branch.” Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241, 1246 (1st Cir.1973) citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 , 91 S.Ct. 746, 750-751 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).

See, e. g., Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241 (1st Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 986 , 94 S.Ct. 2389 , 40 L.Ed.2d 763 (1974).

See, e.g., Ad Hoc Comm. on Judicial Admin., 488 F.2d 1241 .

This is an office which federal habeas has not been, and is not intended to be, designed to serve.”); see also Ad Hoc Comm. on Judicial Admin. v. Com. of Mass., 488 F.2d 1241 , *947 1245-46 (1st Cir.1973) (Campbell, J.) (rejecting claim that alleged failure of Massachusetts, its governor, and its state legislature to provide adequate “court facilities, judges, clerical personnel, and other facilities” violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and stating that, “in this n…

See Ad Hoc Commit tee on Judicial Administration v. Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241 , 1245-46 (1st Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 986 , 94 S. Ct. 2389 , 40 L.

See Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration v. Massachusetts, 488 F.2d 1241 , 1245—46 (1st Cir. 1973) cert. denied 416 U.S. 986 , 94 S.Ct. 2389 , 40 L.Ed.2d 763 (1974); Welsch v. Likins, 550 F.2d 1122, 1132 (8th Cir. 1977).

Only the first type of inaction can qualify as a custom within the scope of § 1983. 398 U.S. at 167 n.39, 90 S.Ct. 1598 ; see Ad Hoc Committee on Judicial Administration v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 358 F.Supp. 953, 957 (D.Mass.), aff’d, 488 F.2d 1241 (1st Cir. 1973). *1193 To apply this principle to the present case, we must first define what the existing Illinois law is, and then determine whether the allegations of the complaint arguably constitute a failure to fulfi…