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

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The court held that the Appeals Council committed legal error when it failed to consider materials from a psychologist who examined plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Washington v. SSA" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed petitions with the EPA seeking to withdraw Alabama's authorization to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), as part of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. On appeal, petitioners challenged the EPA's findings on some of the 22 alleged deficiencies that did not warrant the initiation of program withdrawal proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, concluding that it does not have jurisdiction to review the interim report with which petitioners disagreed because EPA has not made a "determination" within the meaning of section 1396(b)(1)(D). View "Cahaba Riverkeeper v. EPA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(2), alleging that RJ Reynolds discriminated against him on the basis of his age when it rejected his application for employment. The court held that section 4(a)(2) of the ADEA authorizes disparate impact claims by applicants for employment even though the statute is unclear. The EEOC has reasonably and consistently interpreted the statute to cover such claims and the court deferred to the agency's reading of the statute. The court concluded that, in this case, plaintiff is entitled to equitable tolling of the ADEA's limitations period where plaintiff alleges that he could not have even suspected age discrimination until shortly before he filed his charge of discrimination. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the School Board violated his constitutional right to free speech when three of its schools removed banners for plaintiff's tutoring business from their fences. The schools removed the banners after they discovered that plaintiff's tutoring business shares a mailing address with his pornography business. The district court concluded that the schools did not remove the banners based on their content and granted summary judgment for the schools. The court affirmed on different grounds, concluding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment does not protect plaintiff because the banners are “government speech.” Despite the lack of historical evidence in the record, the banners exhibit strong indicia of government endorsement and control. View "Mech v. School Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty." on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, appealed his sentence after the district court applied certain enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that felony obstruction under Georgia law is categorically a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA’s elements clause; even counting defendant’s prior cocaine convictions as a single offense for purposes of the ACCA, his record still would have included three qualifying predicate offenses - two convictions for felony obstruction and a conviction for selling cocaine; because the district court’s treatment of defendant’s cocaine convictions did not affect his status as an armed career criminal, it did not affect his advisory guidelines range or sentence; and his sentence of 210 months in prison is substantively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an inmate on death row, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's order dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court rejected petitioner's claims under United States v. Davis and concluded that nothing in Davis undermines the court's precedent that section 2254 and in turn the requirements of section 2244(b) apply to petitioner's instant habeas petition filed in the district court. Alternatively, the court rejected petitioner's application for permission to file a successive section 2254 petition for numerous reasons. Finally, petitioner has not come close to showing that he is actually innocent and the court rejected his claims as to this issue. The court granted petitioner's request for expedited review, but denied petitioner relief as to his claims. View "Johnson v. Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against 21st Century, alleging that the insurance company acted in bad faith towards its insured. The district court granted judgment in favor of 21st Century. The court held that an insurer owes no duty under Florida law to enter into a so-called Cunningham agreement and likewise owes no duty to its insured to enter into a consent judgment in excess of the limits of its policy. In this case, the district court correctly precluded plaintiffs from introducing evidence of a settlement opportunity letter in support of their bad-faith claim. The court further concluded that this is true whether the court applies the de novo standard of review advocated by plaintiffs or the abuse-of-discretion standard asserted by 21st Century. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kropilak v. 21st Century Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, arguing that he is ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment and Atkins v. Virginia because he is intellectually disabled. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Atkins’s ban on the execution of the intellectually disabled by setting a bright-line IQ cutoff at 70. The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida cannot be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kilgore v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of habeas corpus, arguing that he is ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment and Atkins v. Virginia because he is intellectually disabled. The court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Atkins’s ban on the execution of the intellectually disabled by setting a bright-line IQ cutoff at 70. The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall v. Florida cannot be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kilgore v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Over 25 years ago, a representative of a class of homeless persons, filed a lawsuit against the City of Miami under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement. In this appeal, plaintiff, on behalf of a class, seeks attorney fees for opposing modifications proposed by the City of Miami to such an agreement. The court affirmed the district court's denial of fees given that modification proceedings do not trigger an award of attorneys’ fees under the agreement. In this case, the parties’ agreement limited future attorneys’ fees to enforcement proceedings. View "Peery v. City of Miami" on Justia Law