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

Quinlan petitioned for review of the Commission's final decision holding that Quinlan violated standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq., when two of its employees were caught working on a concrete block wall and roof platform without fall protection and using a stepladder in an unsafe manner. Upon review of the record, briefs, and the relevant case law, and with benefit of oral argument, the court held that it is appropriate to impute a supervisor's knowledge of a subordinate employee’s violative conduct to his employer under OSHA when the supervisor himself is simultaneously involved in violative conduct. Accordingly, the court denied the petition and affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Quinlan v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder in the course of first-degree rape and first-degree robbery, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contended that counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial by not investigating and presenting readily available mitigating evidence regarding his traumatizing childhood, mental deficiencies, and steroid abuse. In this case, the especially gruesome nature of the murder, petitioner's efforts to thwart the police investigation, and petitioner's prior double conviction convinced the court that fairminded jurists could agree with the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals that, after reweighing the aggravating factors against the totality of evidence in mitigation, there is no “reasonable probability” that at least two jurors would have changed their recommendation and the sentencing judge would have ruled differently. Therefore, the court held that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals did not render a decision contrary to or resulting in an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law when it determined that petitioner failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. View "Ray v. AL, Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner alleges that his claims rely on two separate "areas" of newly discovered evidence: first, in March 2014, he learned that an Ohio inmate named Steven Kasler had confessed to the murder for which petitioner was convicted, and second, petitioner claims that a 2014 report from the DOJ demonstrated that Michael Malone, a former forensic analyst with the FBI, “likely” compromised the physical evidence in his case. The court concluded that, because petitioner's claims do not meet the statutory criteria for relief, and because he is in fact subject to the requirements of section 2244(b)(2), his application must be denied. The court also denied petitioner's motion for stay of execution. View "In re: Oscar Bolin, Jr." on Justia Law

The Institute filed the underlying complaint, alleging claims for unjust enrichment, right of publicity, and misappropriation under Michigan common law for Target’s sales of all items using the name and likeness of Rosa Parks. The district court dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that Target's use of Rosa Parks’s name and likeness in the books, movie, and plaque is necessary to chronicling and discussing the history of the Civil Rights Movement. These matters are quintessentially embraced and protected by Michigan’s qualified privilege. Michigan law does not make discussion of these topics of public concern contingent on paying a fee. Therefore, all six books, the movie, and the plaque are protected under Michigan’s qualified privilege protecting matters of public interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self Dev. v. Target Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to 21 counts of mail fraud, 41 counts of wire fraud, and 4 counts of filing a false tax return. On appeal, defendant challenged his 53 month sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in refusing to group defendant's tax offense counts with his wire and mail fraud counts under either (c) or (d) of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2. The court agreed with the majority of circuits and concluded that fraud counts and tax offense counts involving the proceeds of the fraud should not be group together under subsection (c) or (d) of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Doxie" on Justia Law

Defendants Nelson and Snow appealed their sentences imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after they each pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Both defendants have prior convictions for third-degree burglary under Alabama law. The court concluded that defendants' third-degree burglary convictions do not qualify as a violent felony under the elements-based definition; the court has already held that convictions under the same Alabama statute do not qualify under the enumerated-offenses definition; and the Supreme Court declared the residual clause of the ACCA to be unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as untimely. The court concluded that, because petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, he cannot avail himself of the prison mailbox rule and the district court did not err in dismissing his section 2255 motion as time-barred. View "Daniels v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action challenging their insurer's interpretation of Fla. Stat. 627.736(1)(a)(3)–(4). In consolidated appeals, plaintiffs presented the issue of what the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law, Fla. Stat. 627.730–627.7405, places on an insured’s personal injury protection (PIP) benefits where no medical provider has made any determination about whether the insured’s injury was an emergency medical condition. The legislative history clearly shows that the Florida legislature sought to reduce fraudulent claims by making the full $10,000 amount of benefits available only to those insureds who suffered severe injuries, a restriction defined into the term “emergency medical condition.” The court held that Fla. Stat. 627.736, as amended, limits an insurer’s obligation to provide personal injury protection benefits to $2,500, unless one of the medical providers listed in subparagraph (1)(a)(3) has determined that the injured person had an emergency medical condition. Because neither plaintiffs' claim was supported by such a determination, neither insurer violated Fla. Stat. 627.736 by limiting benefits to $2,500. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suits. View "Robbins v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After the City barred plaintiff from opening a tattoo establishment in the City's designated historic district, plaintiff filed suit contending that the act of tattooing is entitled to First Amendment protection and that the City's ordinance limiting the number of tattoo establishments permitted to operate in the historic district is an unconstitutional restriction on his freedom of expression. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that tattooing is protected artistic expression. However, the court reversed the summary judgment because the court concluded that the City has failed to show that the ordinance is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. In this case, aside from the City's vague statement of purpose, the City has presented insufficient evidence that it had a reasonable basis for believing that its ordinance would actually serve the significant governmental interests it propounds. View "Buehrle v. City of Key West" on Justia Law

The Tribe appealed from two orders and a final judgment in a fraud-and-embezzlement-related RICO suit against former tribal officials, several attorneys, a law firm, and Morgan Stanley. In this case, the undisputed current leaders of the Tribe seek entry into federal court asserting federal question jurisdiction based on federal statutory claims against Tribal and non-Tribal members alike. On the pleadings as presented at this stage of the proceedings, general justiciability concerns regarding intra-Tribal conflicts do not defeat jurisdiction. The court affirmed the dismissal of the suit for failure to state a claim, however, because the Tribe did not challenge the dismissal on these grounds in its opening brief and because the complaint lacks the requisite specificity and fails to state a plausible claim. View "Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of FL v. Cypress" on Justia Law