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

After Terrance Bowen was beaten to death by his cellmate, Carl Merkerson, at Baldwin State Prison, the administrator of Bowen's estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Bowen's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was violated when he was housed in a cell with Merkerson. The district court dismissed the action, holding that it did not state Eighth Amendment claims against the prison officials and that, in any event, the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed as to claims against Deputy Warden Doug Underwood and Corrections Officer Cager Edward Davis. In this case, Deputy Warden Underwood and Officer Davis allegedly knew from the population chart and the cell checklist that Merkerson, a convicted murderer, was designated a Level III mental health inmate who had been transferred to Unit K-3, “the lock-down segregation unit for disciplinary, protected custody and mental health individuals,” after assaulting his former cellmate. They also allegedly were aware of the specifics of Merkerson’s severe paranoid schizophrenia, his delusions, and his violent impulses. Therefore, the court concluded that the amended complaint alleges sufficient facts showing that Deputy Warden Underwood and Officer Davis were both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm existed, and also drew the inference. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Bowen v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States. The court held that Johnson does not apply to the Guidelines for the purpose of permission to file a second or successive 2255 petition. Therefore, the court concluded that petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing that his proposed petition will meet section 2255(h)’s requirements for second or successive petitions. The court denied the application. View "In re: Datrist McCall" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, alleging that his sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), is void in light of Johnson v. United States. The court concluded that, unless post-Descamps binding precedent clearly resolves the residual clause ambiguity the applicant has demonstrated, his application contains a Johnson claim such that his application is due to be granted. When, conversely, it is clear based on the sentencing court’s finding in sentencing the defendant that each predicate conviction qualified under the ACCA’s elements or enumerated crimes clause, or as a serious drug offense, or binding on-point precedent dictated that the predicate offenses categorically qualified under one of these other clauses, then his application does not “contain” a Johnson claim. In these limited circumstances, his application is due to be denied. The court concluded that petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case under Johnson where binding precedent clearly classifies as elements clause offenses the convictions petitioner’s sentencing court relied upon as ACCA predicates. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Joseph Rogers, Jr." on Justia Law

Home Design filed suit against Turner for copyright infringement on Home Design’s architectural floor plan HDS-2089. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Home Design, awarding $127,760 in damages. Turner moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury’s verdict under Rule 50(b) and the district court granted the motion. The court held that architectural floor plans are not protected by copyright to the extent that they portray ideas, rather than expressions of ideas. The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 10, restricts which elements of architectural floor plans are protectable through its definition of a copyrightable “architectural work.” The court concluded that Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc. and Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc. control this case. In light of the constraints imposed by a four–three split style home, the court concluded that the differences between HDS-2089 and the Turner plans demonstrate the absence of copyright infringement. The differences between HDS-2089 and the Turner plans are differences in dimensions, wall placement, and the presence, arrangement, and function of particular features around the house. Because the same sorts of differences indicated no infringement in Intervest, that result follows in this case as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Home Design Serv., Inc. v. Turner Heritage Homes Inc." on Justia Law

Congress set forth a detailed process for exclusive judicial review of final Commission orders in the federal courts of appeals. An SEC administrative enforcement action culminates in a final order of the Commission, which in turn is reviewable exclusively by the appropriate federal court of appeals under 15 U.S.C. 78y. At issue in this consolidated appeal is whether respondents in an SEC administrative enforcement action can bypass the Securities Exchange Act’s, 15 U.S.C. 78u(d), 78u-1, 78u-2, 78u-3, review scheme by filing a collateral lawsuit in federal district court challenging the administrative proceeding on constitutional grounds. From the text of the statute, the court could fairly discern Congress’s general intent to channel all objections to a final Commission order - including challenges to the constitutionality of the SEC ALJs or the administrative process itself - into the administrative forum and to preclude parallel federal district court litigation. The court found no indication that respondents’ constitutional challenges are outside the type of claims that Congress intended to be reviewed within this statutory scheme. Accordingly, the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction and the court vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction orders and remanded with instructions to dismiss each case for lack of jurisdiction. View "Hill, Jr. v. SEC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, heirs to eight civilians killed in 2003 by Bolivian troops, filed suit under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350, seeking damages and fees. In this case, plaintiffs have exhausted all of their available Bolivian remedies. They received some compensation through those remedies but not nearly as much as they claim is necessary to fully compensate them for their losses. Defendants sought certification for an interlocutory appeal on two issues: (1) whether the exhaustion requirement in section 2(b) of the TVPA bars plaintiffs’ claims, and (2) whether plaintiffs have failed to state claims for relief under the TVPA. The court answered the first certified question in the negative and affirmed the part of the district court’s order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the TVPA claims on exhaustion grounds. The court concluded that section 2(b)’s exhaustion requirement does not bar a TVPA suit by a claimant who has successfully exhausted her remedies in the foreign state. The court exercised its discretion not to decide the second certified issue, which is actually a cluster of multiple issues involving the claims of multiple plaintiffs against the two defendants. View "Mamani v. Sanchez Berzain" on Justia Law

Defendants, three excess liability insurers, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims. The district court concluded that Georgia's uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) statute imposed upon defendants an unconditional obligation to provide UM coverage to the insured as if they were primary insurers, and that defendants' failure to tender payment amounted to a breach of contract. The court held that Georgia's UM statute, Ga. Code Ann. 33-7-11, applies to defendants' excess liability policies; defendants' excess liability policies contain vertical exhaustion requirements; and section 33-7-11 does not supersede the vertical exhaustion requirements in defendants' excess liability policies. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Coker v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255. Petitioner asserts that his claim relies upon a new rule of law, citing Johnson v. United States, and argues that he was denied due process because the district court enhanced his sentence under the now-voided residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), and subjected him to a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence. The court held that it is not enough for a federal prisoner to simply cite Johnson as the basis for the claim or claims he seeks to raise in a second or successive section 2255 motion, but he also must show that he was sentenced, at least in part, under the residual clause and thus that he falls within the new substantive constitutional rule announced in Johnson. In this case, because petitioner's three prior ACCA predicate convictions qualified under the elements clause without regard to the ACCA’s residual clause, petitioner's application does not contain a prima facie claim that his sentence was based on the residual clause, or that his sentence falls within the scope of the substantive ruling in Johnson or that he will benefit from Johnson. Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re. Morris Vernell Hires, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful asylee from Cameroon, pled guilty to bank fraud and became removable as an aggravated felon. After petitioner completed his criminal sentence, ICE took custody of him and he has been in ICE detention since February 2, 2012. On appeal, the court addressed an issue of first impression: During their removal proceedings, are criminal aliens, like petitioner, detained under section 1226(c) entitled at any point to a bond hearing under the Due Process Clause? The court held that section 1226(c) contains an implicit temporal limitation against the unreasonably prolonged detention of criminal aliens without an individualized bond hearing. The court then established an approach for determining when the removal proceedings and the resulting section 1226(c) mandatory detention of a criminal alien become unreasonably protracted, triggering the need for a bond hearing. Joining the First, Third, and Sixth Circuits, the court adopted the case-by-case approach in determining whether a detention of a criminal alien has become unreasonable. Section 2241 courts must consult the record and balance the government’s interest in continued detention against the criminal alien’s liberty interest, always seeking to determine whether the alien’s liberty interest has begun to outweigh “any justification for using presumptions to detain him without bond.” If the balance tips in the alien’s favor, the district court must grant the section 2241 habeas petition and order the government to afford the criminal alien an individualized bond inquiry. When detained criminal aliens become entitled to a bond hearing, the agency shall conduct a bond inquiry under the procedures outlined in 8 C.F.R. 1236.1(c)(8) and (d). Finally, applying the court's holdings in petitioner's case, the court concluded that he must receive an immediate bond hearing as habeas relief. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Sopo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion. Petitioner argues that his ACCA-enhanced sentence is void in light of Johnson v. United States because his Florida burglary conviction cannot serve as a predicate offense for the ACCA enhancement in light of Johnson. The court concluded that petitioner has made the requisite prima facie showing because his prior Florida conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling may not qualify as a valid predicate offense after Johnson. Accordingly, the court granted the application. View "In Re: Keith Devon Adams" on Justia Law