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

Petitioner, a Florida pretrial defendant awaiting trial on state criminal charges, filed a petition in federal court alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated as a result of temporary measures suspending criminal jury trials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. He sought the dismissal of all of his criminal charges, traveling under the federal habeas provision found in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim, finding that Petitioner gave the court no basis for intervening in his state criminal prosecution. The court held that it cannot say that Petitioner’s speedy-trial filings, which expressly referenced only the Florida rule, fairly raised a federal constitutional speedy-trial claim. Further, there is not any indication that the state court somehow surmised that Petitioner had raised a federal constitutional claim-it never discussed the Sixth Amendment claim, even implicitly.   Further, the court held that Petitioner’s petition is barred under the application of the abstention doctrine under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The court reasoned that Younger established that, based on principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings where the state court conviction and/or sentence is not yet final. View "James Russell Johnson v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Speech First, Inc. (“Speech First”) filed a lawsuit against the University of Central Florida (“University”) arguing that Defendant’s discriminatory-harassment and bias-related-incidents policies violate the First Amendment. Specifically, Speech First contended that the policies are unconstitutionally overbroad and the discriminatory-harassment policy restricts speech based on viewpoint and content. The district court held that Speech First lacked Article III standing to challenge the policies.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and vacated in part, holding that Speech First has standing to sue and the discriminatory-harassment policy likely violates the First Amendment on the grounds that it is an overbroad and content- and viewpoint-based regulation of constitutionally protected expression. The court explained that Speech First has standing to challenge both policies at issue because the policies objectively chill its members’ speech. Further, the court found that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to preliminarily enjoin the discriminatory-harassment policy and that the district court should determine in the first instance whether Speech First is entitled to a preliminary injunction of the bias-related-incidents policy. View "Speech First, Inc. v. Alexander Cartwright" on Justia Law

Previously, a panel of 11th Circuit judges affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's 42 Sec. 1983 claims under the three-strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). The panel based its decision on precedent holding that a "dismissal for failure to exhaust qualifies as a strike under the PLRA."The court voted, deciding to hear the appeal en banc. Thus, the panel's decision was vacated. View "Jeremy John Wells v. Warden, et al." on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant guilty of three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file a federal income tax return. Defendant was represented by counsel at trial, but he lacked representation during the pretrial process. At his arraignment, Defendant expressed his desire to waive his right to counsel and to represent himself. The magistrate judge found that Defendant’s waiver was knowing, even after misinforming him that the maximum sentence he could receive if convicted was 12 months of imprisonmentThe court found the magistrate judge’s statements were materially incorrect. Instead of “unambiguously” informing Defendant of the penalties he faced, the magistrate judge incorrectly asserted that “we’re not talking about a felony involving imprisonment beyond one year”—when the true maximum sentence was three times longer. Thus, the court held that there was no knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. Next, the court found that the deprivation of Defendant’s right to counsel at all pretrial stages of the proceedings against him was a structural error. As such, the court vacated Defendant’s conviction and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "USA v. Saleem Hakim" on Justia Law

Several young girls were locked out of their social media accounts. Shortly after being locked out, Defendant would contact them, demanding pornographic images. Defendant threatened to release the images to the girls' social media followers if they did not follow his instructions. One of the girls called the police, which eventually led them to Defendant's residence. The officer told Defendant he was not under arrest but that he was investigating a crime. Defendant admitted to taking over about 20 girls' social media accounts and provided details about the involvement of several other men. The district denied Defendant's motion to suppress the statements he made to police. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment followed by a life term of supervised release.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding Defendant was not under arrest at the time he made the statements to the police. The court also affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding it was not procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "USA v. Joseph Isaiah Woodson, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Iraq War veteran, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Two sheriff’s deputies conducted a welfare check after a report that the plaintiff had slit his wrist with a knife. When the deputies arrived, the plaintiff was calm and posed no threat to them. Although the plaintiff expressed his willingness to be arrested, one of the deputies suddenly body-slammed him headfirst, causing a serious neck injury.The Eleventh Circuit held that the deputy had probable cause to seize the plaintiff; therefore, the deputy and supervisor are entitled to qualified immunity from unlawful seizure claims. However, the deputy is not entitled to qualified immunity because the way he did so was excessive. The plaintiff satisfied his burden of proving that the supervisor violated his constitutional right, and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Therefore, the sheriff's supervisor was not entitled to qualified immunity from the plaintiff’s claim of supervisory liability. Finally, vicarious liability is unavailable under the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. View "Kirby Ingram v. Louis Kubik, et al." on Justia Law

In March 2017, a woman contacted police explaining that the defendant, her ex-boyfriend, was having sex with her 14-year-old sister. When the girl’s family confronted her, she acknowledged that she was communicating with the defendant over social media, had sent him nude pictures, and that they had sex. The defendant’s cell phone contained nude pictures of the girl. The defendant was charged with various sex offenses in a seven-count indictment. During his arrest, officers confiscated the defendant's second cell phone, which contained additional inculpatory evidence.The district court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his home during a warrantless search, from one of his cellphones obtained from his work, and his statements to detectives. The defendant was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a consecutive ten-year mandatory minimum sentence.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The officers had consent to enter the defendant’s home to obtain his cell phone. Once officers reviewed the phone, they then developed probable cause to search the defendant’s second cell phone. The court also rejected the defendant’s challenges to the computation of his sentence. View "USA v. Romeo Valentin Sanchez" on Justia Law

Under its Social Media Policy, Defendants, the Palm Beach County Fire Rescue Department, disciplined appellants, two firefighters who work for the department. The termination resulted from an exchange the appellants had on an invitation-only social medial page associated with one of Appellant’s campaigns for the presidency of the local firefighters’ union. Appellants accused Defendants of conspiring to misuse member-donated paid time off. The court reviewed the case by examining four factors developed from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Connick v. Myer, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). The court held that the district court (“DC”) erred in finding that Appellants’ speech did not address a matter of public concern at step one of the four-part test.Further, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the DC’s dismissal of Appellants’ free-association claim, finding that it is a free speech claim at its core. Finally, the court found that the Social Media Policy in question suffers from “astonishing breadth,” as it expressly prohibits “disseminating content” that “could be reasonably interpreted as having an adverse effect upon Fire Rescue morale, discipline, operations, the safety of staff, or perception of the public.” The court vacated the DC’s summary judgment on the overbreadth claim and affirmed the DC’s decision rejecting Appellants’ facial-vagueness claim. View "AJ O'Laughlin, et al. v. Palm Beach County" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Americans with Disabilities lawsuit based on lack of Article III standing, concluding that plaintiff has at least alleged an Article III qualifying stigmatic injury. In this case, plaintiff alleged that she suffered a concrete injury when she viewed a hotel's website that omitted accessibility-related information required by federal regulations and as a result, she says, experienced "frustration and humiliation"—even though she admits that she had (and has) no intention to personally visit the hotel.Despite the absence of a close common-law comparator, the court concluded that under existing precedent plaintiff has alleged a concrete intangible injury. The court explained that plaintiff's allegations satisfy Article III under a narrower reading of Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, 996 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2021). Because she claims not only that she suffered illegal discrimination but also that the discrimination resulted in "frustration and humiliation" and a "sense of isolation and segregation," the court concluded that plaintiff has adequately pleaded a concrete stigmatic injury. And because her emotional injury is her emotional injury, it affects her "in a personal and individual way" and is therefore sufficiently particularized. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Laufer v. Arpan LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against University officials, alleging that the University's policy requiring a permit to engage in public speech on the University's sidewalk violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Eleventh Circuit previously concluded, among other things, that plaintiff had not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his case and agreed with the district court that the sidewalk at issue is a limited public forum and thus the University's permit requirement needed to be only reasonable and view-point neutral.In this appeal, after careful consideration and with the benefit of oral argument—and even assuming that the City of Tuscaloosa owns the sidewalk at issue—the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with plaintiff that any facts material to its analysis have changed. Accordingly, the court again concluded that the sidewalk is a limited public forum. The court also reviewed the permitting requirement and found that the policy provisions on leafletting were reasonable, and that plaintiff's actions do not fall within the "casual recreational and social activities" exception. The court concluded that the University's advance-notice requirement was reasonable where the University phrases the ten-day advance-notice period in terms of "should," not "must," and the record contains no evidence that the University has rejected an application simply because it was not submitted ten days before the event. Furthermore, the University's reasons for the advance-notice requirement are also reasonable, and the sidewalk is a limited public forum. Moreover, the policy permits the fast-tracking of a permit if an event relates to a current issue or responds to another event. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keister v. Bell" on Justia Law