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

Petitioner appealed a denial of habeas corpus relief when he was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a young college student. At issue was whether petitioner was entitled to habeas relief based on the prosecutor's references to petitioner's failure to disclose his version of the facts prior to his testimony at the trial in light of Doyle v. Ohio. The court held that the district court properly denied habeas corpus relief where the record was silent about whether any officer or agent ever read petitioner his Miranda rights and therefore, petitioner failed to demonstrate that an essential element was violated under Doyle.

Petitioner, a Florida state prisoner, appealed from the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition challenging his capital conviction and sentence. At issue was whether the prosecutor's comments during voir dire and closing argument violated petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to due process and whether petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilty and penalty phases of trial. The court held that the district court did not err in holding that petitioner was barred from raising the due process claims where he failed to raise these federal claims in state court. The court also held that petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel during voire dire, during the guilty phase, or during the penalty phase of trial.

Plaintiffs, Orlando Food Not Bombs and First Vagabonds Church of God, filed a complaint against the City of Orlando ("City") seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages where the City's ordinance restricted the frequency of plaintiffs' feedings of homeless persons in public parks. At issue was whether the City's ordinance, which limited the number of feedings of large groups that any person or political organization could sponsor in centrally located parks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court held that the ordinance did not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment where the ordinance was a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction of speech and was a reasonable regulation of expressive conduct.

Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, appealed the district court's judgments, which related to his claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in favor of the seven defendant prison officials. At issue was whether two defendants retaliated against plaintiff for filing grievances when plaintiff made statements which "reeked of disrespect of, and profanity to" the defendants. The court affirmed and held that, even if some impermissible reason had entered into defendants' decision-making process to charge plaintiff with prison disciplinary infractions, plaintiff would have been disciplined anyway where the hearing panels concluded that plaintiff had committed the charged conduct which violated prison rules.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, the City of Miami ("City") and several of its police officers, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the City's municipal policies directly caused violations of plaintiffs' constitutional rights where defendants prevented plaintiffs from using a certain operational plan for a protest. At issue was whether defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted and whether the district court erred in granting defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that summary judgment was proper where plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence that would create genuine issues of material fact necessary to support essential elements of their claims. The court also held that the district court properly granted defendants' motion to dismiss where plaintiffs failed to assert specific allegations related to actual, ongoing controversies.

Plaintiff sued defendants alleging that defendants' actions in connection with the opening of his mail violated both prison protocol and the Constitution. At issue was whether, in the absence of physical injury, a prisoner was precluded from seeking punitive damages by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court held that Harris v. Garner, standing alone, sufficiently foreclosed the punitive damages relief sought by plaintiff given that his constitutional claim did not appear to meet 42 U.S.C. 1997(e)(e)'s physical injury requirement.

Plaintiffs sued the City of Jacksonville, Fl ("City") alleging that the City's adult zoning scheme was an invalid time, manner, and place restriction because it did not leave the plaintiffs with adequate alternative avenues for their protected activities. At issue was whether the district court's order granting in part and denying in part both parties' motions for summary judgment was proper. The court court held that it cannot entertain the merits of the parties' arguments where the City has, during the pendency of the appeal, legislatively removed the two provisions underlying the plaintiff's claims.

Defendants appeal their sentences and convictions resulting from a thirty-one count indictment for their involvement in a scheme to defraud investors in telecommunication companies, known as competitive local exchange carriers. At issue was whether the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause by applying a different Sentencing Guideline range than what was in effect at the time of the offense. The court held that the district court's failure to apply the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause where the use of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing did not raise a substantial risk of a harsher punishment for defendants. The court also held that the defendants' numerous other arguments were without merit.