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

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus vacating his convictions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that petitioner was not denied due process or access to the courts because he was unable—due to the unavailability of a transcript of his criminal trial—to prove in collaterally attacking his convictions that his trial attorneys rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court held that the state court's decision affirming the collateral-attack court's denial of relief was not contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court precedent. View "Bush v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus. The court held that federal habeas relief was not warranted on petitioner's claim that his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation was violated under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The court held that there was no basis to conclude that the Florida Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's Sixth Amendment self-representation claim was either contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, or that it resulted from an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Barnes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition, but on different grounds. Petitioner was convicted of murdering Eleventh Circuit Judge Robert Vance and sentenced to death. The court held that petitioner had Article III standing to challenge Alabama's exercise of custody given his previously-imposed federal sentences, and that his second claim did not constitute an unauthorized second or successive section 2254 petition. The court held, however, that petitioner's claims failed on the merits. The court's own precedent foreclosed petitioner's substantive assertion that the Alabama execution could not be carried out until the federal sentences of life imprisonment were complete. View "Moody v. Warden Holman CF" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a deputy in the sheriff's office, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the deputy seized his iPhone after plaintiff took photos and videos of a car accident crash scene from an interstate grass median. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the seizure constituted a Fourth Amendment violation. Furthermore, plaintiff's rights were clearly established at the time of the seizure such that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Crocker v. Deputy Sheriff Steven Eric Beatty" on Justia Law

The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) excepts authorized acts of lobbying from its purview. The Eleventh Circuit denied plaintiffs' appeal of an adverse summary judgment granted for defendants, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the DPPA by obtaining and disclosing each plaintiff's driver's license photo for an impermissible purpose. The court held that the distribution of the photos related directly to Defendant Fewless' lobbying efforts, and when he distributed the photos, he was acting on behalf of a Federal, State, or local agency in carrying out its functions. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that defendants were entitled to summary judgment. In the alternative, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where there was no case law clearly establishing that Fewless' use of the photos was impermissible. Furthermore, plaintiffs were required to show that no reasonable officer in the officers' position could have believed that he was accessing or distributing the photos for a permissible use under the DPPA. View "Baas v. Fewless" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that the Supreme Court of Georgia reasonably concluded that petitioner's attorneys were not deficient for failing to uncover mitigating evidence from petitioner's childhood. The court also held that the state court reasonably concluded that the attorneys' failure to hire an independent crime-scene expert to corroborate petitioner's account of the murders did not prejudice him. View "Morrow v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison" on Justia Law

A jury awarded to the EEOC and an employee back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages after finding that the employer, Exel, discriminated against her because of her sex. The district court denied Exel's motion for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law as to liability, but granted the motion as to the jury's punitive damages award. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the employee's evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that she suffered discrimination because of her sex. The court also held that, under prior precedent, the district court properly vacated the jury's punitive damages award. View "EEOC v. Exel, Inc." on Justia Law

A jury awarded to the EEOC and an employee back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages after finding that the employer, Exel, discriminated against her because of her sex. The district court denied Exel's motion for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law as to liability, but granted the motion as to the jury's punitive damages award. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the employee's evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that she suffered discrimination because of her sex. The court also held that, under prior precedent, the district court properly vacated the jury's punitive damages award. View "EEOC v. Exel, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted in 1986 of three counts of malice murder and set for execution on March 15, 2018, sought permission to file a second habeas petition and a stay of execution, seeking to present claims that his execution would violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because the state destroyed evidence in connection with a post-conviction DNA test of vaginal washings from one body and because he is actually innocent. The Muscogee County Superior Court denied Petitioner’s motion; the Georgia Supreme Court denied review. The Eleventh Circuit denied relief. The court declined to draw the adverse inference against the state that the DNA evidence exculpates the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the state contaminated the sample in bad faith. The testimony at the evidentiary hearing demonstrated that the sample was contaminated with a specially used quality control sample, which was handled by another scientist who used shared the same lab area. Petitioner’s contamination claim is not based on an event that occurred during Petitioner’s prosecution for the murders. Petitioner’s claim that he is actually innocent of the murder, has been barred by the Supreme Court: Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding. View "In re: Carlton" on Justia Law

In 1995, Austin, with his two-year-old son in his car, was using a payphone when Welch approached and put a gun at Austin’s side. A struggle ensued. Welch escaped with Austin ’s car, which was recovered nearby (Austin’s money was gone); his son was found wandering the streets. Austin's gunshot wound resulted in his castration. Welch, on parole, later fired shots at a District Attorney Investigator, fled, and was arrested. His bag contained stolen firearms and jewelry. Welch confessed to shooting Austin. He was charged with conspiracy to commit carjacking, carjacking, using a firearm during a crime of violence, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of stolen firearms. Welch pleaded guilty without an agreement. Welch’s guidelines range was 188-235 months, reflecting a 15-year Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, based on Alabama convictions for first-degree robbery and first-degree assault. The Eleventh Circuit rejected his pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), to consider a successive motion to vacate or correct his life sentence. The motion was based on a new, retroactive, rule of law: the Supreme Court's "Johnson" holding that ACCA’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. The court applied the modified categorical approach to Alabama’s first-degree assault statute and examined Welch ’s indictments. The least of the acts criminalized by the statute includes the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person, as required by ACCA’s elements clause. View "In Re: Welch" on Justia Law