Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs brought suit individually and on behalf of James Christopher Allen's estate against defendants, including officers Cooks and Harkleroad, for excessive force, denial of medical care, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., assault, battery, negligence, and wrongful death. Allen died shortly after the officers repeatedly used their Tasers in an attempt to subdue and arrest defendant, who died shortly thereafter while being transported to jail. Cooks and Harkleroad subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal after the district court's judgment. The court held that, given all the factors, the officers' conduct did not arise to the level of "obvious clarity" which would require all reasonable officers to inevitably conclude that the force used was unlawful. Accordingly, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. The court also held that no reasonable jury could find that the officers used their Tasers with the deliberate intent to do wrong. The court agreed, and plaintiffs concurred, with Harkleroad's claim that he could not be held liable under Georgia law for any negligence-based claim resulting from the performance of discretionary acts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hoyt v. Cooks, et al." on Justia Law

This was an appeal of a judgment of civil contempt that arose from a child pornography investigation. John Doe was served with a subpoena duces tecum requiring him to appear before a grand jury and produce the unencrypted contents located on the hard drives of Doe's laptop computer and five external hard drives. Doe informed the U.S. Attorney that, when he appeared before the grand jury, he would invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to comply with the subpoena. The court concluded that, because Doe's act of production would have testimonial aspects to it, an order to compel him to produce the unencrypted contents of the drives would require immunity coextensive with the Fifth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 6002. Immunity coextensive with the Fifth Amendment required both use and derivative-use immunity. The Government's offer of act-of-production immunity clearly could not provide the requisite protection because it would allow the Government to use evidence derived from the immunized testimony. Thus, because the immunity offered here was not coextensive with the Fifth Amendment, Doe could not be compelled to decrypt the drives. Therefore, the court held that Doe properly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege and reversed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011 USA v. Doe" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted alien smuggling and one count of failing to obey an order by federal law enforcement to heave to their vessel. The district court applied an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.1(b)(5)(A) because a firearm was discharged by law enforcement. Defendant appealed his sentence, contending that the district court committed procedural error by incorrectly calculating the advisory Guidelines range. The court concluded that defendant's actions induced law enforcement to discharge their firearms because law enforcement's response was a reasonable foreseeable result of defendant's conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's 84-month sentence. View "United States v. McQueen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this action against defendants, alleging that all defendants violated her free exercise rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq. Plaintiff also alleged that CSC violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims. The court held that plaintiff had not provided evidence that Dr. Chosewood, CDC's Director of Health and Safety, and Ms. Zerbe, the CDC project officer responsible for managing the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) contract, requested her removal from the EAP in retaliation of her free exercise rights. Because plaintiff failed to show that her constitutional right was violated, Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that no reasonable juror could conclude that Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe's decision was based on plaintiff's religious objections to counseling clients in same-sex relationships, rather than the manner in which plaintiff handled a certain client's referral and their understanding that plaintiff would not alter her behavior in connection with future referrals. Because Dr. Chosewood and Ms. Zerbe did not violate plaintiff's statutory right under RFRA, they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court further held that plaintiff could not assert a Bivens action against CSC; because CSC did not burden plaintiff's religious rights by removing her from the EAP contract or by ultimately terminating her employment, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of CSC on her RFRA claim; and the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII claim against CSC. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Walden v. Centers for Disease Control, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the President of Valdosta State University, claiming that under the Due Process Clause, he was due notice of the charges, and a hearing to answer them, prior to his removal from campus. Plaintiff, a student, was removed on the ground that he presented a "clear and present danger" to the campus. Plaintiff joined the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia as a defendant, claiming against the Board a state-law breach of contract claim for damages. Plaintiff claimed that the student handbook and contracts for student housing established binding agreements between the Board and the university students and the Board breached these agreements by failing to afford plaintiff the due process prior to his removal from campus. The court held that the district court properly denied the President's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity where plaintiff had a constitutional right to process before he was removed from the university and plaintiff's constitutional rights were clearly established. The court held, however, that the district court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract claim against the Board as barred by the Eleventh Amendment where Georgia had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for breach of contract actions. View "Barnes v. Zaccari, et al." on Justia Law

This case concerned the fruits of a cooperative, multi-national criminal investigation directed at tracking a sprawling international child pornography ring. 14 members of the ring were charged with offenses related to child pornography and this appeal addressed seven of the defendants. Defendants raised numerous issues on appeal. After review of the record and having had the benefit of oral argument, the court vacated Ronald White's child exploitation enterprise (CEE) conviction under Count One; vacated the other six defendants' convictions for conspiracy under Count Two; and vacated all of defendants' convictions for statutory obstruction of justice under Count Forty. The court also vacated the restitution award against James Freeman and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed in all other regards. View "United States v. McGarity" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with one count of illegal reentry by an alien who had been previously removed or deported. Defendant argued that the indictment must be dismissed because the Government was collaterally estopped from attempting to establish the essential element of alienage because a jury, in a previous federal criminal trial for illegal reentry, found against the Government on this indispensable element. Based on all of the evidence presented on the issue of defendant's alienage and considering that the evidence of the remaining three non-alienage elements was undisputed, the court concluded that "the jury's verdict of acquittal [in the 2009 trial] was based upon reasonable doubt about a single element of the crime." Accordingly, the court agreed that the Government was collaterally estopped from arguing that defendant was an alien, reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Valdiviez-Garza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from a final order of criminal forfeiture seized from a safe deposit box. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that defendant lacked standing to challenge the validity of the preliminary order forfeiture (POF). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over this claim. The court also held that the district court did not err in dismissing defendant's petition as untimely under 21 U.S.C. 853(n) and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant relief under Rule 60(b)(1) based on excusable neglect. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and affirmed in part. View "United States v. Davenport" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court held that, because defendant could not have been convicted of an offense for which he was not indicated, the district court's jury charge did not constructively amend or broaden the indictment. The court also held that, although the district court abused its discretion by admitting defendant's 1988 conviction for selling marijuana, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial. The court held that defendant's remaining claims lacked merit and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanders, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the Secretary and several elected officials, alleging that the officials' application of a Georgia statute that governed absentee voting, Ga. Code Ann. 21-2-381(a)(1)(D), denied him the right to have a ballot mailed to him at the jail and prevented him from voting while he was incarcerated in the fall of 2008. The court vacated the summary judgment entered by the district court and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff's alleged injury was not fairly traceable to any actions of the officials where plaintiff would not have received a ballot at the jail regardless of the officials' application of the statute when he provided only his home address on his application for an absentee ballot. View "Swann v. Secretary, State of Georgia, et al." on Justia Law