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

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

Defendant was convicted of mail fraud and money laundering charges related to two separate fraudulent schemes: the River Shore Scheme and the GenSpec Scheme. On appeal, defendant challenged his convictions and sentences on various grounds. The court concluded that the proof presented at trial in connection with the River Shores mail fraud count materially varied from the allegations contained in the superseding indictment and this variance substantially prejudiced defendant. Therefore, the court reversed his conviction on this count. The court also reversed defendant's money laundering convictions because they were predicated on the River Shores mail fraud count. The court affirmed defendant's mail fraud convictions related to the GenSpec Scheme. Finally, the court held that defendant's other assertions of error lacked merit. View "United States v. Lander" on Justia Law

Appellants, members of the U.S. House of Representatives, along with the Florida House of Representatives, appealed from a district court order granting final summary judgment to appellees, the Florida Secretary of State and various intervening parties. At issue was whether a state constitutional provision, Amendment Six, establishing standards for congressional redistricting that was approved by the people by initiative was contrary to the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court held that Florida voters' act of lawmaking according to the state's expressly enumerated lawmaking process was fully consistent with the commands of the Elections Clause, and consonant with the understanding given to the Elections Clause by the Supreme Court in Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant and Smiley v. Holm. The court also held that the factors enumerated in Amendment Six have been for many years commonly considered by legislative bodies in congressional redistricting and long accepted by the courts as being lawful and consistent with the powers delegated to the state legislatures by the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Brown, et al. v. State, et al" on Justia Law

Appellants are the parents of G.J., a child with autism and brain injuries. At issue was whether the ALJ and the district court properly evaluated appellants' claims that the MCSD did not comply with certain provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., with respect to services it was to provide to G.J. The court held that the district court did not err in setting forth reasonable conditions for G.J.'s reevaluation and in determining that appellants were not entitled to either a private or publicly funded independent educational evaluation. The court also held that there was no basis for making a determination that any procedural failures with regard to the August 2008 and 2009 IEP meetings impacted the education received by G.J. to any substantive degree. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "G. J., et al. v. Muscogee Co. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law