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

Plaintiff filed suit against USAA on behalf of himself and a putative class for declaratory judgments that USAA's method to calculate insurance payments was inconsistent with Florida law and the insurance policy.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that plaintiff does not have standing to seek prospective relief on the off chance that he might total a car again in the future. The court further concluded that plaintiff's request for supplemental relief does not change the standing analysis for a declaratory judgment claim. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff does not have standing to bring his declaratory judgment claims, vacated the district court's order of dismissal, and remanded to the district court with instructions that the district court remand the case back to state court. View "Mack v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After a debt collector electronically transmitted data concerning a consumer's debt to a third-party vendor, the third-party vendor then used the data to create, print, and mail a "dunning" letter to the consumer. The consumer then filed suit alleging that, in sending his personal information to the vendor, the debt collector had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b), which, with certain exceptions, prohibits debt collectors from communicating consumers' personal information to third parties "in connection with the collection of any debt." The district court dismissed the action.The Eleventh Circuit held that a violation of section 1692c(b) gives rise to a concrete injury in fact under Article III. The court also concluded that the debt collector's transmittal of the consumer's personal information to its dunning vendor constituted a communication "in connection with the collection of any debt" within the meaning of section 1692c(b). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc." 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 median. The district court granted summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims except for one, which plaintiff prevailed at trial.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order, holding that plaintiff's First Amendment claim is barred by qualified immunity because defendant did not violate clearly established law at the time; plaintiff's false-arrest claims fail because defendant had probable cause to arrest him because plaintiff's car was parked on a limited-access facility in violation of Florida law; and plaintiff's excessive-force claim fails on the merits and, in any event, is barred by qualified immunity. The court noted that, whether it analyzed plaintiff's excessive-force claim under the Fourteenth or Fourth Amendment, the court would reach the same result. View "Crocker v. Beatty" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit sua sponte vacated its previous opinion and substituted the following opinion.These appeals arose from a Title VII action filed by four ultrasound technologists against the Secretary, alleging that their supervisors and coworkers retaliated against them and subjected them to a hostile work environment at the Tampa VA because they engaged in protected EEOC activity. One plaintiff also alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. Because two intervening decisions changed the law applicable to plaintiffs' discrete retaliation claims and retaliatory hostile work environment claims, the court remanded those claims to the district court with the instruction that it analyze the claims consistent with the intervening decisions. Because the intervening decisions did not, in the court's judgment, affect the resolution of the sex-based hostile work environment claim in this case, the court considered that claim alone and affirmed the district court's decision to enter summary judgment for the Secretary.In this case, the court concluded as an initial matter that most of the named co-worker's conduct lacks the necessary sexual or other gender-related connotations to be actionable sex discrimination. The court explained that nothing in the record allows the conclusion that the coworker's conduct had anything to do with plaintiff's sex; the context surrounding the coworker's inappropriate touching of plaintiff shows that the touching was not sex based; and there is no evidence suggesting that the angry looks, harsh words, and silent treatment that the coworker gave plaintiff were influenced by plaintiff's sex. Even if the coworker's conduct was based on plaintiff's sex, her claim would still fail because the conduct is insufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment. View "Tonkyro v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

The Sentencing Guidelines' enhancements under subsections 2L1.2(b)(2) and (3), for criminal convictions received before and after the defendant's previous deportation or removal, do not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Nor do they cause unlawful double-counting in violation of due process or otherwise.Defendant was convicted of illegal reentry after the 2016 United States Sentencing Guidelines went into effect. Because he had committed other offenses both before his original deportation and after it, but before his current illegal-reentry offense, he received offense-level increases under both subsections USSG 2L1.2(b)(2) and (3).The Eleventh Circuit concluded that defendant's challenge to section 2L1.2(b)(2) is foreclosed by the court's binding precedent in United States v. Adeleke, 968 F.2d 1159, 1160–61 (11th Cir. 1992). The court explained that subsections 2L1.2(b)(2) and (3) do not apply to all noncitizens convicted of any crime in the United States; rather, they apply to only those noncitizens who both have illegally reentered the United States and have been convicted of other crimes. Furthermore, this is important because, through section 1326(b), Congress has determined that illegally reentering the United States after being deported following conviction on another crime is a more serious offense than simply illegally reentering the United States, and that conduct should be deterred. The court further explained that the challenged guidelines reflect the national interests that Congress permissibly has endorsed through its enactment and amendment of section 1326(b). The court also concluded that Congress has entrusted the Sentencing Commission with direct responsibility for fostering and protecting the interests of, among other things, sentencing policy that promotes deterrence and appropriately punishes culpability and risk of recidivism—the interests the Sentencing Commission cited in issuing the challenged guidelines. Finally, the court concluded that subsections 2L1.2(b)(2) and (3) are rationally related to the Commission's stated interests in issuing them. Therefore, the court upheld the guidelines at issue and affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Osorto" on Justia Law

This panel originally held that binding circuit precedent required that it conclude that nominal damages claims alone could not save appellants' otherwise moot constitutional challenges. On March 8, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the panel's opinion.On remand from the Supreme Court, which held that an award of nominal damages by itself can redress a past injury, the panel reversed the district court's dismissal of appellants' First Amended Complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski" on Justia Law

In this libel case, the Eleventh Circuit held that New York's "fair and true report" privilege, codified as N.Y. Civ. Rights Law 74, applies to the fair and true publication of the contents of a document that was filed and sealed in a Florida paternity/child custody proceeding.Plaintiff filed suit against Gizmodo and Katherine Krueger, the author of an article published on the Splinter website owned by Gizmodo, over an article entitled "Court Docs Allege Ex-Trump Staffer Drugged Woman He Got Pregnant with 'Abortion Pill.'" The district court concluded that section 74 applied, and that the Splinter article was a fair and true report of the supplement because it was "substantially accurate." Plaintiff does not challenge the district court's finding that the Splinter article was a fair and true report, but he maintains that the section 74 privilege does not apply because the supplement was filed in a paternity/child custody proceeding and sealed. The court held that section 74's fair and true report privilege applies to the Splinter article written by Ms. Krueger about the supplement filed by the mother of plaintiff's child, and that the 1970 decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Shiles v. News Syndicate Co., 261 N.E.2d 251, 256 (N.Y. 1970), does not preclude the application of section 74. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Miller v. Gizmodo Media Group, LLC" on Justia Law

A majority of the active judges of the Eleventh Circuit voted to rehear this case en banc.This petition for writ of mandamus arises under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. Petitioner, one of more than 30 woman who were victimized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein, sought mandamus relief, alleging that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA. Specifically, petitioner alleged that federal prosecutors violated her rights to confer with the government's lawyers and to be treated fairly by them.The en banc court held that the CVRA does not provide a private right of action authorizing crime victims to seek judicial enforcement of CVRA rights outside the confines of a preexisting proceeding. The court explained that, while the CVRA permits a crime victim like Ms. Wild to move for relief within the context of a preexisting proceeding—and, more generally, to pursue administrative remedies—it does not authorize a victim to seek judicial enforcement of her CVRA rights in a freestanding civil action. In this case, because the government never filed charges against Epstein, there was no preexisting proceeding in which Ms. Wild could have moved for relief under the CVRA, and the Act does not sanction her stand-alone suit. View "In re: Courtney Wild" on Justia Law

After the district court construed defendant's pro se letter as a motion for a sentence reduction and, without giving him any opportunity to be heard, denied the motion, defendant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration. The district court also denied the motion for reconsideration.Applying the framework in United States v. Jones, 962 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), the Eleventh Circuit concluded that defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, but the court cannot tell whether the district court understood that it had the authority to reduce his sentence. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's orders denying a sentence reduction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor on his claim of First Amendment retaliation, he was awarded only one dollar in nominal damages because the Eleventh Circuit has interpreted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(e), as barring punitive damages for a prisoner's civil action where no physical injury is shown.The en banc court now recognizes that section 1997e(e) permits claims for punitive damages without a showing of physical injury. The en banc court explained that it did not conduct a textual interpretation of the statutory text and did not consider any non-physical injuries that were also not mental or emotional in nature. The en banc court misapprehended the text of the statute and the nature of the physical injury requirement when it comes to punitive damages. Therefore, in this case, plaintiff should be given an opportunity to obtain punitive damages too. In all other respects, the en banc court reinstated the panel opinion. View "Hoever v. Marks" on Justia Law