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

Plaintiff alleged (1) Officer N. used excessive force when he tased Plaintiff at the scene of an automobile wreck, (2) Officer H. failed to intervene to prevent Officer N’s excessive force, and (3) the City of Madison, Alabama admitted the officers’ actions were the result of its municipal policy. Relying on body camera footage, Defendants Officer N., Officer H., and the City moved to dismiss. The district court granted their motions to dismiss. On appeal, Plaintiff argued the district court erred by (1) considering the officers’ body camera footage when ruling on Defendants’ motions to dismiss without converting them into summary judgment motions, (2) granting qualified immunity to Officer N., (3) dismissing Plaintiff’s failure-to-intervene claim against Officer H., and (4) dismissing his municipal liability claim against the City.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the district court properly considered the body camera footage, correctly ruled that Officer N. did not violate a constitutional right and thus Officer H. had no duty to intervene and accurately determined that Plaintiff’s claim against the City failed as a matter of law. The court explained Officer N.’s use of the taser was justified because of (1) Plaintiff’s repeated failure to comply with Officer N.’s commands, (2) Plaintiff’s unsafe driving that had just caused an automobile accident, (3) Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to get back in the vehicle, (4) Plaintiff’s physical resistance to Officer N.’s attempts to remove him from the vehicle, and (5) the tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving series of events. Thus, the court concluded that Officer N.’s single use of a taser in dart mode was objectively reasonable. View "Curtis Baker v. City of Madison, Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, a pardoned felon, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to expunge the records of his criminal conviction. Defendant argued that the district court erred in concluding that (1) it lacked jurisdiction over his claim; and (2) even if it had jurisdiction, the merits of his motion did not warrant expungement. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that his request is for a constitutional expungement.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Defendant’s motion. However, because the district court assumed that it had jurisdiction and evaluated and denied Defendant’s motion on the merits, the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court applied Kokkonen to Defendant’s request for a constitutional expungement. Since the proceedings from Defendant’s underlying tax offense—the offense for which Defendant brings his expungement claim—concluded more than a decade ago, the invocation of ancillary jurisdiction for an expungement of his record so that he can more easily donate to charity is not necessary “to permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent,” nor is it necessary for the court to “manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.” Accordingly, the court held that although the district court correctly noted that it lacked the requisite ancillary jurisdiction to hear Defendant’s expungement motion, it ultimately impermissibly evaluated and denied the motion on the merits. View "USA v. James Batmasian" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his total 40-year sentence and lifetime term of supervised release, imposed after he pleaded guilty to various counts of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity, sending extortionate interstate communications, and possessing and producing child pornography. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in applying an enhancement. The government responds that even if the district court erred, the alleged error in calculating Defendant’s guideline range was harmless because his total offense level would have remained the same without the enhancement. Defendant also contends that the district court erred by failing to separately state its reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court’s statement of reasons complied with Section 3553(c)(1). It explained which of the Section 3553(a) factors it found most persuasive and stated that it had considered the parties’ arguments and the PSR in sentencing Defendant. The district court also indicated that, in determining its sentence, it considered Defendant’s age, as well as Defendant’s claim that he had been a victim of sexual assault himself. This explanation was sufficient as to Defendant’s overall sentence, which was comprised of a term of imprisonment of 40 years and a lifetime term of supervised release. View "USA v. Breshawn Hamilton" on Justia Law

The owners of a hotel that the City of Boynton Beach declared a “chronic nuisance property” complain that they were deprived of property without due process and that the municipal chronic nuisance property code violates their First Amendment rights and those of their hotel guests. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City because the City afforded the hotel owners due process and enforcing the municipal code did not violate rights protected by the First Amendment.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the hotel owners lack prudential standing to bring a First Amendment claim based on the rights of hotel guests, failed to present any evidence that the City otherwise violated the First Amendment, and failed to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Further, the court explained that the hotel owners’ claim lacks the causal connection between their injury and the third parties’ injuries that must be present for jus tertii standing. Moreover, the court wrote that the hotel owners’ complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. The hotel owners alleged that they were deprived of procedural protections during the administrative proceeding, but they did not allege in their complaint that there was no state process to remedy these procedural defects. View "Mata Chorwadi, Inc., et al. v. City of Boynton Beach" on Justia Law

This appeal involves four recently enacted provisions of Florida’s election law, including provisions that regulate ballot drop boxes, the solicitation of voters at the polls, and the delivery of voter registration forms by third-party voter registration organizations. Several plaintiff organizations sued the Florida Secretary of State, the Florida Attorney General, and several Supervisors of Elections. The district court enjoined three provisions because it found they were adopted with the intent to discriminate against black voters in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as well as section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And it imposed a preclearance requirement under section 3(c) of the Act. The district court also ruled that the solicitation provision was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finally, it enjoined a provision that required third-party voter registration organizations to provide a disclaimer to voters who use their services to register to vote, but all parties agree that any appeal of the judgment as to that provision has been rendered moot by the repeal of the provision.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court reversed the judgment that the drop-box, solicitation, and registration-delivery provisions violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Further, the court reversed the imposition of a preclearance requirement. The court affirmed the judgment declaring unconstitutionally vague the second phrase in the solicitation provision’s challenged clause, but the court reversed the judgment invalidating the first phrase in the clause. Finally, the court vacated the judgment finding the registration-disclaimer provision unconstitutional. View "League of Women Voters of Florida Inc., et al. v. Florida Secretary of State, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a Florida death-row prisoner who is scheduled to be executed on May 3, 2023, at 6:00 p.m. Barwick brought an action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, arguing that the Governor of Florida and several other state officials violated his constitutional right to due process because they did not adequately consider his candidacy for executive clemency. He also moved for an emergency stay of execution. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a stay. Plaintiff then moved in this Court for a stay of execution pending appeal.   The Eleventh Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion for a stay. The court explained that here Plaintiff argued that the State violated his due-process rights because it did not provide any standards that would govern the clemency decision. But under the Eleventh Circuit’s binding precedent, the court wrote it cannot agree that the Due Process Clause requires the State to provide any such standards. An initial problem with Plaintiff’s argument about the State’s lack of standards is that it runs counter to Supreme Court authority. Further, the court held that it cannot agree with Plaintiff’s argument that his clemency proceeding was arbitrary because the Commission allegedly “provided false guidance” when it said it was not concerned with his guilt but then “myopically focused on [his] crime.” Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiff’s due-process claim does not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. View "Darryl Barwick v. Governor of Florida, et al" on Justia Law

Greater Birmingham Ministries (“GBM”), an Alabamian non-profit organization dedicated to aiding low-income individuals, and several Alabamian felons (collectively “Appellants”) appealed the district court’s summary judgment denying their Equal Protection Clause challenge to Amendment 579 of the Alabama state constitution, their Ex Post Facto Clause, challenge to Amendment 579’s disenfranchisement provisions, and their National Voting Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), challenge to the format of Alabama’s mail voting registration form.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that (1) Amendment 579 successfully dissipated any taint from the racially discriminatory motives behind the 1901 Alabama constitution; (2) Amendment 579 does not impose punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause; and (3) Alabama’s mail voting registration form complies with the NVRA. The court wrote that it rejects Appellants’ invitation to review the extent the Alabama legislature debated the “moral turpitude” language of Amendment 579. Further, the court explained that Section 20508(b)(2)(A) is a notice statute enacted for the convenience of voting registrants. Alabama’s mail-in voting form has provided sufficient notice by informing registrants that persons convicted of disqualifying felonies are not eligible to vote and providing an easily accessible link whereby voters convicted of felonies can determine their voter eligibility. Accordingly, Alabama has complied with the requirements of Section 20508(b)(2)(A). View "Treva Thompson, et al. v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his Section 2255 habeas petition to vacate his sentence of 211 months imprisonment on the ground that he was sentenced as an armed career criminal but does not qualify as one. He argued that his prior conviction in Florida for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon cannot serve as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because it can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness and that, without this predicate offense, he does not have three qualifying convictions, and he must be resentenced.   The Eleventh Circuit, after receiving Florida Supreme Court’s answer to the court’s certified questions, affirmed. The court wrote that it is persuaded that aggravated assault under Florida law requires a mens rea of at least knowing conduct and, accordingly, that it qualifies as an ACCA predicate offense under Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). Defendant, therefore, has the requisite three predicate offenses under the ACCA, and he was properly sentenced by the district court as an armed career criminal. View "Fred Somers v. USA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, one day before the expiration of the statutory limitations period, initiated suit pro se against federal prison officials on behalf of his deceased mother’s estate. Plaintiff, who had unsuccessfully attempted to retain counsel before filing suit, did not know that he could not represent his mother’s estate pro se and needed, instead, to secure legal representation. Several months later, but before responsive pleadings were filed by Defendants, he retained counsel who entered an appearance and filed an amended complaint on behalf of the estate reasserting the original cause of action, asserting additional causes of action, and adding the United States as a defendant. Plaintiff assumed that retaining counsel and filing an amended complaint corrected his original mistake. The district court disagreed and dismissed the suit.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The court explained that while Plaintiff was not legally authorized under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654 to represent the Estate pro se, the district court erred in dismissing the case without first providing Plaintiff an opportunity to rectify his mistake by obtaining counsel. Once properly represented, the Estate was entitled to file the amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1). Further, the FTCA claims asserted therein were timely, and the Bivens claims relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint. Therefore, the Estate’s claims can proceed. View "Grant Sunny Iriele v. Richard Carroll Griffin, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state a crime. In his motion, Defendant argued that 8 U.S.C. Section 1324(a) does not apply extraterritorially.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss and held that Sections 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and (a)(2)(B)(ii) apply to his extraterritorial conduct. The court concluded that it may infer the extraterritorial application of the Section 1324(a)subsections under which Defendant was charged. First, the subsections—which prohibit encouraging, inducing, or bringing aliens into the United States—target conduct that can take place outside the United States. Second, the nature of the offenses is such that limiting them to the United States would greatly “curtail the scope and usefulness of the statute.” The court explained that Bowman’s principles and the weight of authority from other sister circuits overwhelmingly support the court’s conclusion that extraterritoriality may be inferred from Congress’ intent to prevent illegal immigration and from the nature of the offenses—each of which contemplates conduct at, near, and beyond our borders. View "USA v. Stanley Wintfield Rolle" on Justia Law