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

Plaintiffs, daughters of the late Kenneth Weinberg, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to county jail officers. Kenneth, a pretrial detainee at the jail for twenty months, commenced this civil rights suit under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming deliberate indifference to his basic medical needs because the officers refused to provide him with batteries for his hearing aids, rendering the aids worthless and leaving him unable to hear. Kenneth also filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and a First Amendment retaliation claim against the officers for the same conduct. The court concluded that Kenneth stated a viable constitutional claim but that state law did not provide the officers with "fair warning" that their alleged conduct was unlawful. Accordingly, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers. View "Weinberg Gilmore, et al. v. Hodges, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, on behalf of their daughter, filed suit challenging the district's implementation of a new individualized education program (IEP) for their daughter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Determining that the daughter's case was not moot, the court concluded that the court need not decide whether the various notice requirements were satisfied because whatever notice deficiencies there could have been in this case, they did not warrant relief; there was no error in requiring the parents to present a complaint and demand a due process hearing because they disagreed with the IEP team's decision; the district court correctly stated the Loren F. ex. rel. Fisher v. Atlanta Independent School System standard, fully reviewed the administrative record, and independently analyzed each of the parents' claims; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the parents' proposed order and then decided the case on summary judgment; and the court held that 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions for denial of rights conferred by the IDEA were barred because the IDEA's comprehensive enforcement scheme provided the sole remedy for statutory violations and, therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing the parents' section 1983 claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "K.A. v. Fulton County Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court found that the district court erred in holding that the emergency aid exception justified law enforcement officers' warrantless entry into defendant's apartment where, considering the totality of the circumstances, it was not reasonable for the officers to believe that someone inside defendant's apartment was in danger and in need of immediate aid. Because the officers' initial entry into defendant's apartment was not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the district court erred in holding that the same justification permitted the officers to enter defendant's bedroom. Finally, the court held that the district court erred in denying defendant's ore tenus motion to suppress with regard to defendant's statements during two telephone calls at issue, but did not err in denying defendant's ore tenus motion to suppress with regard to defendant's statements during another telephone call. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Timmann" on Justia Law

Mr. Chafin appealed the district court's grant of Ms. Chafin's petition for wrongful removal under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670. The district court found that the child's country of habitual residence was Scotland and that Mr. Chafin failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that returning the child to Scotland would expose her to grave risk of harm. The court affirmed, concluding that Mr. Chafin had not demonstrated that the district court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and that the district court correctly applied the law to the facts. View "Chafin v. Chafin" on Justia Law

Dr. Hinchee, who resides in Florida, and Chevron appeal the district court's discovery order compelling production of Dr. Hinchee's documents to the Republic of Ecuador. Dr. Hinchee served as a testifying expert for Chevron in a related proceeding. The discovery dispute at issue stemmed from a suit brought by Ecuadorian plaintiffs alleging that Texaco's oil exploration in the Amazonian rain forest polluted private and public lands in Ecuador and that Texaco was responsible for plaintiffs' oil-related health problems and the environmental contamination of plaintiffs' property. The court concluded that Dr. Hinchee's notes and email communications with non-attorneys, including other experts, were relevant within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), and the Republic was thus entitled to discover these materials. Neither the text of Rule 26(b)(3)(A) nor its structure, history, and rationale support extending the work-product doctrine to all testifying expert materials. To the extent any attorney core opinion work-product was embedded in the 1,200 documents at issue here, Chevron and Dr. Hinchee could appropriately redact such portions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order compelling discovery. View "Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of possessing and distributing child pornography. On appeal, defendant filed a motion for release on bond pending his sentencing hearing, or, in the alternative, for limited remand and temporary release on bond pending the conclusion of the proceedings on limited remand. Defendant argued that his terminal cancer and short life expectancy provided the exceptional circumstances which make his detention pending sentencing inappropriate. The court reversed the district court's order finding that it lacked the jurisdiction to consider whether exceptional reasons under 18 U.S.C. 3145(c) warrant defendant's release pending sentencing. The court recognized that, on limited remand, the district court determined by clear and convincing evidence that defendant had clearly shown in accord with section 3145(c) that there are exceptional reasons why his detention pending sentencing would not be appropriate. However, given the discretionary language of the statute, and the court's holding today, the court remanded for the district court to assume jurisdiction and to make a determination of whether to order defendant's release. View "United States v. Meister" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row inmate convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court rejected petitioner's evidentiary claims, conflict of interest claim, and ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court concluded that defendant had not shown that the Florida state courts' decisions were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the section 2254 petition. View "Downs v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections, et al." on Justia Law

Louis Vuitton filed a federal trademark infringement suit against defendant for operating websites that were selling counterfeit Louis Vuitton bags. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him. The court concluded that, under the unrebutted allegations and testimony, the district court in Florida did not violate the Due Process Clause by exercising personal jurisdiction over defendant for Louis Vuitton's trademark infringement claims. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment because the statutory and federal constitutional personal jurisdiction requirements were satisfied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his habeas petition because it was untimely. The district court concluded that petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that his Initial Motion complied with Florida's oath requirement. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that petitioner rebutted the presumption of correctness of the state court's finding with clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, the Initial Motion was properly filed and docketed for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations for a federal habeas petition. View "Kearse v. Secretary, Florida Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for knowingly transmitting a threatening communication under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Defendant sent an anonymous email to a local radio show host threatening, inter alia, the safety of local schools. The court held that Virginia v. Black did not require a subjective-intent analysis for all true threats. Therefore, when the Government shows that a reasonable person would perceive the threat as real, a true threat may be punished and any concern about the risk of unduly chilling protected speech has been answered. The court also rejected defendant's overbreadth claim. Because true threats are unprotected speech, and because the court's reading of section 875(c) limited that statute to true threats, defendant had not demonstrated a realistic danger that the statute would significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's conviction and restitution order. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law