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

Appellant, convicted of kidnapping and murder and sentenced to death, moved for a stay of execution and expedited consideration of his appeal of the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. Appellant had filed a complaint to challenge the method of execution in Florida. The court denied appellant's motion for a stay of execution because he could not establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his complaint where appellant's claims were barred by res judicata; appellant's claims about the new drugs in the three-drug protocol were barred by the statute of limitations, and, even if they were not, appellant had not stated plausible claims for relief under the Eighth Amendment; and appellant received due process in the clemency proceedings provided by the Governor. The court also denied appellant's motion for a stay of execution. View "Mann v. Palmer, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint that her former employer discriminated against her after she became pregnant. At issue was whether direct estoppel barred a claim of pregnancy discrimination under state law when a jury found at trial that plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action regarding her claim of retaliation for exercising her right to maternity leave under federal law. The court concluded that the jury verdict against plaintiff's claim of retaliation estopped plaintiff from relitigating the common issue of whether she suffered an adverse employment action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against plaintiff's claim of pregnancy discrimination. View "DuChateau v. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas corpus petition as untimely. Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing his federal remedies, he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the court need not address petitioner's argument pertaining to whether his attorneys' conduct constituted an "extraordinary circumstance." Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's federal habeas petition as untimely. View "Melson v. Commissioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged certain rules issued by the Department of Labor governing the employment of temporary, non-agricultural foreign workers, asserting that the Department had no authority to issue these rules. The district court agreed and granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the rules during the pendency of the action. The court found that the district court's legal conclusion regarding plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits was without error, and its finding of fact supporting its conclusion that none of the other factors militates against the issuance of the preliminary injunction was without clear error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bayou Lawn & Landscape Svcs, et al v. Pineros Y Campesinos Unido, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint asserting, inter alia, violations of his Constitutional rights, based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata principles. At issue was the preclusive effect of a prior state court eviction action initiated by the City against plaintiff. The court concluded that the state court proceedings as to the First Amendment issues raised in the second amended counterclaim did not end prior to the commencement of the federal action and therefore, Rooker-Feldman did not divest the court of jurisdiction, regardless of whether the claims raised in state court were identical to those raised in federal courts. Consequently, the court need not address the City's arguments as to whether any of the claims asserted in the federal amended complaint were inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment. The court further concluded that none of the federal causes of action were barred by res judicata under Florida's transaction test; defendants have not specified what issues they believe were identical in the federal amended complaint and in the eviction action, but instead, defendants merely restated their res judicata argument as a collateral estoppel argument; and the Admiralty Action had no preclusive effect of any of the issues raised here. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, FL, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon and subsequently appealed his 420-month sentence. Defendant's sentence resulted not only from his criminal history, which included two different attempted murder convictions, but also from the district court's finding that he subsequently murdered his wife while absconding from his state parole supervision. The court held that the district court committed no constitutional error in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1) and the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and imposing an above-guideline sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Overstreet" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Florida death row prisoner, appealed from the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's request for a competency hearing, expert funds related to the issue of his competency, and stay pending a determination of his competency to proceed in his federal habeas corpus proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Connor v. Florida DOC, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants Jose and Lisandra Cruz appealed their sentences. The court held that the district court did not err in applying a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10) for the use of device-making equipment where the enhancement was warranted based on Jose's possession of device-making equipment and where Jose did not dispute this factual finding. Further, based on Lisandra's knowledge of the details of the charged offenses, and her own actions, the district court did not err in finding that she could be held responsible for her co-conspirators' use of a credit card skimmer. The court also held that the district court did no err in applying a two-level abuse-of-trust enhancement where Lisandra's conduct fell within the conduct addressed by application note 2 of U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's sentences. View "United States v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been removed to Mexico, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether defendant's prior conviction of simple vehicle flight as defined in Fla. Stat. 316.1935(2) was an "aggravated felony" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). The court held that any crime that is an Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), violent felony is also a U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) aggravated felony; the Florida crime of simple vehicle flight is an ACCA violent felony; therefore, that crime is also a section 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's sentence. View "United States v. Coronado-Cura" on Justia Law

AOF appealed from the district court's order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of Lakeland City. Lakeland filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the city's practice of opening each city commission legislative session with a sectarian prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution. The city maintained, inter alia, that Resolution 4848, adopted a few months after AOF complained in March 2010 about its practices in selecting invocation speakers, did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Florida Constitution. The court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the city and the mayor, in part, because the court concluded that AOF failed to demonstrate that the adoption of Resolution 4848 resulted in proselytizing or advancing the Christian religion over all others solely because the speakers who were selected included sectarian references in their prayers. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide AOF's challenge to the city commission's pre-March 2010 speaker selection practice as violative of the Establishment Clause and the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Atheists of Florida, Inc., et al v. City of Lakeland, Florida, et al" on Justia Law