Inside the Supreme Court
Petition to Decision
Papers of Supreme Court Justices on Civil Rights Cases
David Achtenberg
Professor & Law Foundation Scholar
UMKC School of Law
Kansas City, MO 64110-2499
816-235-2382
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
City of Canton v. Harris
Timeline
|
Part 1 Deciding to Grant Review First Filings to Grant of Certiorari |
Part 2 Briefing, Argument & Decision on the Merits Grant of Certiorari to First Conference |
|
Part 3 Drafting the Opinions First Drafts to Final Decisions |
Part 4 After the Decision Petition for Rehearing and Post Decision Events |
Coverage: This page is a chronological timeline of the Court’s internal discussion and handling of City of Canton v. Harris from the petitioner's earliest filings through the announcement of the decision in the case. The timeline is divided into four sections which can be accessed through the buttons above or the ones in the yellow navigation area.
Accessing Documents: Each event is linked to all the documents in the Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, and White files (as well as some documents from additional sources) that relate to that event. To access a document, click on its link. In the illustration below, you would click the link indicated by the red arrow to access the copy of Justice Powell's Opinion log that was found in his files. (The links do not work on this illustration which is not from the Canton files. To experiment, go to the timeline itself.)
Duplicate Documents: When more than one copy of a document was found, I have included and linked all copies. When a particular justice’s copy of a document contains additional annotations or markings, the link to that copy ends with an asterisk. In the illustration above, the asterisks at the end of the circled entries indicate that both Justice Marshall and Justice Powell (or their clerks) made notes on their respective copies of the first draft of Justice Brennan's majority opinion.
Abbreviations: I have abbreviated the names of the justices, their clerks, and a few other persons. A key to all abbreviations can be accessed by clicking the abbreviations button in the yellow navigation area.
Dates: If the date of an event is unclear, estimated or derived, the date is underlined and the date is linked to an explanation.
Higher Resolution Copies: Most of the documents are presented in comparatively small pdf files which should be adequate for most uses. Please let me know if you think that any particular image needs to be replaced with a higher resolution version. I will also be happy to send higher resolution copies (or original JPEGs) of any images to anyone who needs them. For further information about how the documents were photographed, edited and converted to pdf files, click here to go to the Image Creation and Conversion Protocol Page.
Sources and Citation: For an explanation of how to determine the original archive location of any document, click here to go to the Document Source Page.
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Canton Timeline—Part 1 | ||||||||
| Deciding to Grant Review: First Filings to Grant of Certiorari (11/06/86 - 03/07/88) | ||||||||
| Documents | ||||||||
| Event | Date | HAB | WJB | TM | BRW | Other | ||
| City files application for extension of time to file petition for certiorair | 11-06-86 | Docket | ||||||
| AGS grants application for extension until January 4, 1987 | 11-10-86 | Docket | ||||||
| Petition for certiorari filed by City | 01-02-87 |
Docket Petition |
||||||
| Petition for certiorari distributed to chambers for consideration at February 20, 1987 cert conference | 02-04-87 | Docket | ||||||
| Order issued extending time for brief in opposition until March 25, 1987 | 02-05-87 | Docket | ||||||
| Case is removed from the February 20, 1987 cert conference list. | 02-05-87 | Memo SD to Conf | ||||||
| BRW's clerk SD circulates a memorandum to the pool. SD suggests holding this case for City of Springfield v. Kibbe but recognizes that Kibbe may be dismissed as improvidently granted. If so, SD is uncertain whether this would be a good substitute because of ambiguity about what arguments were made below. He recommends awaiting the brief in opposition or calling for a response. | 02-06-87 | Memo SD to Conf | ||||||
| HAB's clerk CRF annotates SD's original pool memo. CRF recommends that HAB wait for a response and then deny. | 02-12-87 | Memo SD to Conf | ||||||
| Order issued further extending time for brief in opposition until April 3, 1987 | 03-16-87 | Docket | ||||||
| Brief in Opposition filed by Respondent Harris | 04-03-87 |
Docket BIO |
||||||
| Petition and BIO redistributed to chambers for consideration at April 24, 1987 cert conference. | 04-08-87 | Docket | ||||||
| Reply filed by Petitioner City | 04-10-87 |
Docket Reply |
||||||
| CRF annotates SD's original pool memo and recommends against granting certiorari at least at this time. | 04-20-87 | Memo SD to Conf | ||||||
| Case is discussed in conference. At the request of WHR, BRW, and TM, the Court decides to hold the case for City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik (86-772). It appears that the initial vote was five to deny (WJB, HAB, LFP, JPS, and AGS), three to grant (WHR, BRW, and SOC), and one (TM) to hold with one or two others (BRW and probably WHR) later joining the request to hold. | 04-24-87 | WJB Docket (Vote Record) | TM Docket (Vote Record | Docket | ||||
| SDO writes a memo to conference recommending that, in light of the Court's forthcoming decision in City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, the court should grant certiorari in City of Canton v. Harris. (This document is found in HAB's Praprotnik files, not in his City of Canton files.) | 03-01-88 | Memo SDO to Conference | ||||||
| Petition, BIO, and Reply redistributed to chambers for consideration at March 4, 1988 cert conference | 03-01-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Petition discussed in conference. Court decides to grant certiorari 7-2. HAB and JPS would deny. | 03-04-88 | WJB Docket (Vote Record) | TM Docket (Vote Record | |||||
| Order granting certiorari issued | 03-07-88 | WJB Docket (Vote Record) | TM Docket (Vote Record | Docket | ||||
| Canton Timeline—Part 2 | ||||||||
| Briefing, Argument & Decision on the Merits (03/31/88 - 11/10/88) | ||||||||
| Documents | ||||||||
| Event | Date | HAB | WJB | TM | BRW | Other | ||
| Time for filing Petitioner's brief on the merits extended to May 5, 1988 | 03-31-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Joint Appendix filed | 05-05-88 |
Docket JtAppx |
||||||
| Brief for Petitioner City filed | 05-05-88 |
Docket Petitioner Brief |
||||||
| Brief for Amicus International City Management Association filed together with Motion for Leave to File | 05-05-88 |
Docket ICMA Brief |
||||||
| Record Filed | 05-16-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Time for filing Respondent's brief on the merits extended to June 30, 1988 | 05-18-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Motion of International City Management Association for leave to file amicus brief granted. | 05-23-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Brief of Respondent Harris filed | 06-28-88 |
Docket Respondent Brief |
||||||
| Brief of Amicus ACLU filed | 06-30-88 |
Docket ACLU Brief |
||||||
| Petitioner City files application for extension of time to file Reply Brief | 07-20-88 | Docket | ||||||
| WHR extends Petitioner's time to file reply brief to August 11, 1988 | 07-25-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Reply Brief of Petitioner City filed | 08-11-88 |
Docket Reply Brief |
||||||
| Briefs circulated to chambers | 08-12-88 | Docket | ||||||
| Case set for argument on November 8, 1988 | 08-29-88 | Nov Arg Schedule | Docket | |||||
| WJB schedules discussion meetings with his clerks to discuss various cases. He schedules discussion of Canton with his clerk EPR for October 21, 1988. | 10-11-88 | WJB Disc Schedule | ||||||
| HAB's clerk KMK writes memo to HAB recommending dismissing certiorari as improvidently granted on the basis that the petitioner's position was not presented below or (if the merits are reached) affirming. Proposed oral argument questions are attached. | 10-17-88 |
Memo KMK to HAB HAB Oral Arg Questions |
||||||
| EPR writes memo to WJB recommending reversal on the basis that, even if the Court adopts the gross negligence standard (rather than the more demanding deliberate indifference standard) there was not enough evidence to satisfy either standard. Summary of Ruling Below is attached | 10-21-88 |
Memo EPR to WJB Summ of Ruling |
||||||
| WJB meets with EPR to discuss case | 10-21-88 | WJB Disc Schedule | ||||||
| TM's clerk DLWC writes memo to TM recommending that TM vote either to dismiss as improvidently granted or to affirm. | 10-28-88 | Memo DLWC to TM | ||||||
| TM attaches note to DLWC's memo. "New trial. Affirm. Let it stay where it [was]." | 10-28-88 | TM Note | ||||||
| HAB prepares handwritten pre-argument notes indicating that he expects to vote to dismiss as improvidently granted or to affirm | 11-06-88 |
Memo HAB to Self Transcript |
||||||
| Case argued | 11-08-88 |
HAB Oral Arg Notes Transcript |
Oral Argument Transcript & Audio | |||||
| WJB prepares typed remarks on Canton to deliver at the conference | 11-09-88 | WJB Notes for Conf | ||||||
| Canton discussed in conference. Court votes 7 to 2 to reverse with HAB voting to dismiss as improvidently granted and TM voting to affirm. It is not clear whether there yet is a consensus on the standard to be applied on remand . | 11-10-88 |
HAB Conf Notes Transcript |
WJB Conf Notes Transcript WJB Docket (Vote Record) WJB Circ Record |
TM Conf Notes Transcript TM Docket (Vote Record |
||||
| Canton Timeline—Part 3 | ||||||||
| Drafting the Opinions: From First Drafts to Final Opinions (11-14-88 - 02/28/89) | ||||||||
| Documents | ||||||||
| Event | Date | HAB | WJB | TM | BRW | Other | ||
| DLWC writes memo to TM setting out the positions of the various justices at conference and recommending that TM await the majority opinion and any concurrence by WJB before writing an independent dissent | 11-14-88 | Memo DLWC to TM | ||||||
| WHR assigns opinion to BRW | 11-14-88 | WJB Circ Record | ||||||
| BRW circulates first draft opinion. | 12-20-88 | BRW 1st Draft | BRW 1st Draft | BRW 1st Draft | BRW 1st Draft | |||
| KMK writes memo to HAB discussing possible responses to BRW's first draft | 12-20-88 | Memo KMK to HAB | ||||||
| DLWC writes memo to TM discussing possible responses to BRW's first draft | 12-21-88 | Memo DLWC to TM | ||||||
| JPS writes BRW that he is prepared to join BRW's opinion if three language changes are made. (The memo does not indicate that it was sent to the entire Conference, but there is a copy in the TM files.) | 12-22-88 | Memo JPS to BRW | Memo JPS to BRW | |||||
| SDO writes BRW suggesting that his opinion should identify two situations in which failure to train could show deliberate indifference (obvious need for training to avoid constitutional wrongs or awareness of a pattern of constitutional wrongs, see footnote 10 of final opinion). She also suggests that the plaintiff should have to identify the specific policy maker. She also suggests that the Court should reverse for a judgment for the defendant on the basis that the evidence is insufficient. | 12-23-88 | Memo SDO to BRW | Memo SDO to BRW | Memo SDO to BRW | Memo SDO to BRW* | |||
| BRW or his clerk annotates SDO's 12-23-88 memo | 12-28-88 | Memo SDO to BRW* | ||||||
| BRW writes memo to SDO responding to her 12-23-88 memo. He does not think that the plaintiff needs to identify the policymaker and still believes the case should be remanded rather than reversed outright. However, he accepts and will incorporate her other suggestions. | 12-29-88 | Memo BRW to SDO | Memo BRW to SDO | Memo BRW to SDO | Memo BRW to SDO | |||
| BRW writes memo to JPS accepting the changes suggested in JPS's 12-22-88 memo. | 12-29-88 | Memo BRW to JPS* | Memo BRW to JPS | Memo BRW to JPS | Memo BRW to JPS | |||
| HAB indicates that he has not previously seen JPS's 12-22-88 memo to BRW. | 12-29-88 | Memo BRW to JPS* | ||||||
| WJB responds to BRW's draft (and the subsequent exchange of memos) indicating that he generally agrees with the draft and agrees that plaintiffs should not always have to identify the policymaker. He indicates that he doubts he could join the opinion if it reversed without remanding. | 12-29-88 | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | |||
| AMK writes BRW that he strongly favors outright reversal rather than reversal and remand and a requirement that plaintiffs identify a specific policymaker. | 12-30-88 | Memo AMK to BRW | Memo AMK to BRW | Memo AMK to BRW | Memo AMK to BRW | |||
| JPS writes BRW that he will join but could not join an outright reversal | 12-30-88 | Memo JPS to BRW | Memo JPS to BRW | Memo JPS to BRW | Memo JPS to BRW | |||
| WHR writes BRW stating that he prefers an outright reversal but would probably join in an opinion remanding if a majority prefers it. | 12-30-88 | Memo WHR to BRW | Memo WHR to BRW | Memo WHR to BRW | ||||
| KMK writes memo to HAB indicating that there is a 4-4 split on whether to remand and suggesting that HAB join asking for a remand to prevent BRW from choosing an outright reversal | 01-01-89 | Memo KMK to HAB | ||||||
| DLWC writes memo to TM setting out what she has learned from BRW's clerk and suggesting that TM may wish to join, wait to hear from WJB and HAB, or write separately | 01-03-89 | Memo DLWC to TM | ||||||
| BRW circulates second draft of opinion | 01-03-89 | BRW 2nd Draft | BRW 2nd Draft | BRW 2nd Draft | ||||
| AGS writes BRW stating that he will not join a remand. He wants opinion to hold that plaintiff must identify the policymaker, but can join if it leaves that issue open. | 01-03-89 | Memo AGS to BRW | Memo AGS to BRW | Memo AGS to BRW | Memo AGS to BRW | |||
| HAB writes BRW that he will join the opinion but will not join an outright reversal. | 01-03-89 | Memo HAB to BRW | Memo HAB to BRW | Memo HAB to BRW | Memo HAB to BRW | |||
| Drafts of WJB's dissenting opinion in Florida v Riley and AGS's concurring opinion in Duquesne Light filed (in all likelihood, by mistake) in BRW's Canton file. | 01-03-89 |
Riley Draft Duquesne Light Draft |
||||||
| SDO writes that she continues to believe that Court should not remand so she will circulate an opinion concurring in part | 01-04-89 | Memo SDO to BRW | Memo SDO to BRW | Memo SDO to BRW | Memo SDO to BRW | |||
| WJB writes BRW suggesting that the opinion expressly state that the plaintiff should have an opportunity for a new trial in which she could meet the Court's newly adopted standard of liability since she presented her evidence in a circuit that had adopted a less stringent standard | 01-04-89 | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW* | |||
| BRW annotates WJB's memo with notes that appear to have become his January 5 memo to WJB. | 01-04-89 | Memo WJB to BRW* | ||||||
| KMK writes HAB suggesting that HAB write echoing WJB's position if he agrees with it. | 01-04-89 | Memo KMK to HAB | ||||||
| HAB writes BRW indicating that he will join BRW's opinion if he adopts WJB's suggestions | 01-04-89 | Memo HAB to BRW | Memo HAB to BRW | Memo HAB to BRW | Memo HAB to BRW | |||
| TM writes BRW that TM will join the opinion if BRW accepts WJB's suggested changes. | 01-05-89 | Memo TM to BRW | Memo TM to BRW | Memo TM to BRW | Memo TM to BRW | |||
| WHR writes BRW that he will join in BRW's opinion. | 01-05-89 | Memo WHR to BRW | Memo WHR to BRW | Memo WHR to BRW | Memo WHR to BRW | |||
| BRW writes WJB indicating that he originally provided a "doubtful" fifth vote to reverse outright but now thinks that whether there should be a new trial should be left to the Court of Appeals. He will leave opinion as is and awaits SDO's concurrence. | 01-05-89 | Memo BRW to WJB | Memo BRW to WJB | Memo BRW to WJB | Memo BRW to WJB | |||
| SDO circulates 1st draft of an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. | 02-04-89 | SDO 1st Draft | SDO 1st Draft | SDO 1st Draft | SDO 1st Draft | |||
| AGS writes SDO joining in her opinion. | 02-06-89 | Memo AGS to SDO* | Memo AGS to SDO | Memo AGS to SDO* | ||||
| AMK writes SDO joining her opinion. | 02-08-89 | Memo AMK to SDO | Memo AMK to SDO | Memo AMK to SDO | Memo AMK to SDO | |||
| SDO circulates 2nd draft of an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. | 02-14-89 | SDO 2nd Draft | SDO 2nd Draft | SDO 2nd Draft | ||||
| WJB writes BRW joining BRW's opinion. | 02-17-89 | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | Memo WJB to BRW | |||
| WJB circulates 1st draft of a concurring opinion | 02-17-89 | WJB 1st Draft | WJB 1st Draft | WJB 1st Draft | WJB 1st Draft | |||
| TM writes BRW joining BRW's opinion. | 02-17-89 | Memo TM to BRW | Memo TM to BRW | Memo TM to BRW | Memo TM to BRW | |||
| BRW circulates 3rd draft of opinion | 02-22-89 | BRW 3rd Draft | BRW 3rd Draft | BRW 3rd Draft | ||||
| Reporter of Decisions FDW writes BRW enclosing proposed syllabus | 02-24-89 | Memo FDW to BRW | ||||||
| BRW annotates FDW's memo indicating syllabus is fine. | 02-24-89 | Memo FDW to BRW | ||||||
| BRW writes FDW indicating syllabus is fine. | 02-27-89 | Memo BRW to FDW | ||||||
| Opinion announced | 02-28-89 | WJB Circ Record | TM Docket (Vote Record) | Announcement Transcript & Audio | ||||
| Canton Timeline—Part 4 | ||||||||
| After the Decision: Post-Decision Events (03/01/89 - 03/02/89) | ||||||||
| Documents | ||||||||
| Event | Date | HAB | WJB | TM | BRW | Other | ||
| BRW writes memo to conference recommending disposition of cases held for Canton | 03-01-89 | Memo BRW to Conference* | Memo BRW to Conference* | |||||
| WJB and clerk annotate BRW's cases held memo | 03-02-89 | Memo BRW to Conference* | ||||||
| HAB annotates BRW's cases held memo | 03-02-89 | Memo BRW to Conference* | ||||||
| Canton Home |
|
Timeline Part 1 |
|
Timeline Part 2 |
|
Timeline Part 3 |
|
Timeline Part 4 |
| Abbreviations |
| Notes to Timeline Dates | |||
| Date | Explanation | ||
| 02-05-87 | SD's 2/6/87 memo indicates that the case was removed from the cert conference list and it seems likely this occurred when Respondent Harris was granted additional time to file a BIO. | ||
| 04-24-87 | The Court's docket indicates the conference occurred on Friday 4/24. However, Justice Brennan's docket indicates that it occurred on 4/27. Unless the Friday conference ran over or was rescheduled for Monday (a day on which the Court heard argument in at least three cases), it seems likely that the 4/24 date is correct. | ||
| 10-11-88 | This date is somewhat arbitrarily estimated as one week before the first scheduled conference. The document could just as easily have been created shortly after 8/29 when the relevant argument schedule was distributed to the justices. | ||
| 10-21-88 | Neither of these documents are dated, but it seems likely that they were prepared for the clerk's 10/21 meeting and discussion of the case with WJB. | ||
| 11-14-88 | Date estimated based on context. The memo itself indicates it was written after the merits conference and before the author learned that the case had been assigned. | ||
| 01-03-89 | Date estimated based on context. The memo indicates that BRW's 2nd draft will "arrive this afternoon." | ||
| 02-06-89 | This memo is undated and is marked received 2/6 in HAB's file and 2/7 in BRW's file. | ||
| 02/24/89 | Date estimated based on context. | ||
| 03-02-89 | This date is somewhat arbitrarily estimated. Each set of annotations must have been made on or before 3/6 when the three cases discussed in the memo were decided. | ||