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

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his 210-month sentence, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing pursuant to Johnson v. United States. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the portion of the district court's judgment determining that petitioner's section 2255 motion was untimely because it raised only a claim pursuant to Descamps v. United States. The court held, however, that the district court's conclusion that petitioner's section 2255 motion also did not assert a Johnson claim was erroneous. On the merits of the Johnson claim, the court held that petitioner failed to prove that but for the residual clause he would have received a different sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the motion. View "Beeman v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a public school teacher, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that she was denied a promotion in violation of her First Amendment right to free speech and intimate association. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the school superintendent, holding that the district court defined "clearly established law" at too high a level of generality. In this case, the case law that plaintiff relied upon was not particularized to the facts of the case, but rather it merely set out First Amendment principles at a high level of generality, it was not "apparent" that passing her over for promotion based on things her father said would violate her constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to grant the superintendent summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to the section 1983 claims against him. View "Gaines v. Wardynski" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence agents found in an outbuilding adjacent to defendant's main residence while they were executing a warrant for defendant's arrest. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the search of the adjacent outbuilding was reasonable for two independent reasons: (1) the search was a reasonable entry pursuant to the arrest warrant; and alternatively (2) the search qualified as a valid protective sweep. Finally, the court held that there was no merit to defendant's newly raised argument that the evidence found in the outbuilding should have been suppressed because the arrest warrant executed at "approximately" 6:00 a.m. was invalid. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising from an allegedly defective surgical mesh implant, the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: In a product liability case, does Texas' discovery rule require a plaintiff to have some knowledge of possible wrongdoing on the part of the manufacturer—i.e., a causal connection between the injury and the manufacturer's conduct—before the plaintiff's claims can accrue? View "Bergin v. Mentor Worldwide LLC" on Justia Law

When a plaintiff takes inconsistent positions by pursuing in district court a civil claim that he failed to disclose as an asset in his bankruptcy proceedings, a district court may apply judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiff's civil claim if it finds that the plaintiff intended to make a mockery of the judicial system. When determining whether a plaintiff who failed to disclose a civil lawsuit in bankruptcy filings intended to make a mockery of the judicial system, a district court should consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the court should look to factors such as the plaintiff's level of sophistication, his explanation for the omission, whether he subsequently corrected the disclosures, and any action taken by the bankruptcy court concerning the nondisclosure. The court overruled portions of Barger v. City of Cartersville, 348 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2003), and Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2002), that permit a district court to infer intent to misuse the courts without considering the individual plaintiff and the circumstances surrounding the nondisclosure. Accordingly, the court remanded for consideration of whether the district court abused its discretion in light of this new standard. View "Slater v. United Steel Corp." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of five complaints filed by automobile body shops, asserting federal antitrust and state tort claims against insurance companies. The court held that the shops pleaded enough facts to plausibly support their federal antitrust and state tort claims. In this case, the body shops argued that the insurance companies engaged in two lines of tactics in pursuit of a single goal: to depress the shops' rates for automobile repair. The body shops have supplied enough allegations to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of an illegal agreement; the body shops have consistently alleged the existence of parallel conduct and of plus factors allowing a plausible inference of an illegal agreement; and the allegations have sufficiently established the body shops' state tort claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and tortious interference. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Quality Auto Painting Center of Roselle, Inc. v. State Farm Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) covers discrimination against breastfeeding mothers. Plaintiff filed suit against the police department under the PDA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after her reassignment and constructive discharge. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and held that there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination when plaintiff was reassigned from the narcotics task force to the patrol division; the denial of accommodations for a breastfeeding employee violated the PDA when it amounted to a constructive discharge; a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have felt compelled to resign; and the City's remaining arguments were unavailing. View "Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, Alabama" on Justia Law

Defendants Larry and Dixie Masino were indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, operating an illegal gambling business, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and money laundering. A federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment that added predicate offenses to Count Two, operating an illegal gambling business. The Eleventh Circuit declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Larry's cross-appeal of a denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment; Count Two of the indictment was legally sufficient to state an offense; because a violation of the Florida bingo statute could satisfy the essential element about state law required to prove Count Two, the court need not address Florida gambling house statutes as a basis for upholding the indictment; and thus the indictment stated the essential element about state law because the bingo statute provides at least some violations that would make a gambling business illegal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reversed the order dismissing part of Count Two of the indictment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Masino" on Justia Law

This appeal involved four of a group of twelve cases filed by death row inmates challenging the constitutionality of the State's lethal injection protocol. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the four cases, holding that the ADOC's law-of-the-case argument failed. The court also held that the complaint stated a claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In this case, the complaint alleged that if midazolam fails to render the inmates insensate, the severe pain caused by the second and third drugs would represent a "substantial risk of serious harm," and each of the inmate's three proposed alternatives would be obtainable by the ADOC and would completely eliminate the risk of suffocation and pain the second and third drugs create. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "West v. Commissioner, Alabama DOC" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for dealing in firearms without a federal firearms license, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), and selling firearms to unlicensed residents of states other than his own without having a license to do so, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(5). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to include defendant's proposed language in the jury instructions regarding Count 1; defendant's Second Amendment challenge to section 922(a)(1)(A) failed, and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss Count 1 on this basis; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3; and the court rejected defendant's challenges to the application of three sentencing enhancements for possession of various firearms, the international transfer of firearms, and obstructing justice, because a 51 month sentence was reasonable after considering the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Focia" on Justia Law