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

The court certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court and the Alabama Supreme Court subsequently declined to answer the certified question. After reconsideration of the facts and law in this case, the court found that it is unnecessary at this juncture to answer the certified question because there exists a genuine dispute of material fact regarding a preliminary (and dispositive) issue: the nature of the parties’ relationship. The court concluded that the record is presently insufficient to determine whether the parties entered into an attorney-client relationship or a principal-agent relationship when Mississippi Valley hired defendant as an attorney agent. The court will not pass on the certified question regarding whether defendant’s conduct does or does not constitute the provision of legal services, because if the parties never entered into an attorney-client relationship, then defendant’s conduct is irrelevant. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Mississippi Valley Title Ins. Co. v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant, Commissioner of the City of Margate, Florida, was acquitted of one count, and convicted of two counts, of bribery in programs receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B) and (2). The court rejected the government's argument that the district court erred in granting defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal and concluded that there is much too large of an inference to conclude that 1) federal stimulus funds were used; 2) each bus shelter costs $40,000; 3) there were six shelters built; and 4) that at least $10,000 in federal funds must have been used. The court also concluded that the decision to classify assistance as a federal benefit was properly submitted to the jury. Finally, the district court was well within its discretion to consider the government's brief in order to make a fully informed decision on the merits of defendant’s sufficiency challenge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. McLean" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, filed suit against CCG and its sheriff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that, upon taking office after winning his election, the sheriff transferred her to a less prestigious position with much less responsibility and authority based on her support of his opponent in the election. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that (1) her First Amendment claim was foreclosed as a matter of law by this court’s precedent, despite the fact that CCG’s civil service system prohibits employment decisions based on political patronage, and (2) her Fourteenth Amendment claim could not proceed to trial because no genuine dispute existed over whether the sheriff’s proffered reasons for her transfer were a pretext for discrimination. View "Ezell v. Darr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, alleging claims related to a beating by prison staff, for which he was denied medical treatment. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court reversed the district court's judgment because the district court failed to follow the two-step process the court has created for deciding exhaustion challenges, and because in concluding that one of plaintiff's grievances did not exhaust, the district court enforced a procedural bar that the prison may have waived. View "Whatley v. Warden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of trafficking cocaine and serving a thirty-year sentence, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to perfect a motion to suppress key evidence. The court concluded that reasonable jurists could agree that counsel was not deficient when she did not perfect a motion to suppress because she thought petitioner lacked standing. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition because the Georgia Court of Appeals reasonably determined that trial counsel rendered sufficient performance. View "Pineda v. Warden" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently challenged the denial of his motion to suppress the firearm and the calculation of his sentence. This appeal presents an issue of first impression: whether the vagueness doctrine of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The court held that the vagueness doctrine applies only to laws that prohibit conduct and fix punishments, not advisory guidelines. The court concluded that the district court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress. Further, the district court properly determined that defendant's previous convictions for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling were crimes of violence and that defendant’s resistance created a substantial risk of death or bodily injury in the course of fleeing from a law enforcement officer. The court rejected defendant's argument that the definition of “crime of violence” in the Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Matchett" on Justia Law

Petitioner's attorney did not call any witnesses or present any evidence during the penalty phase of his trial, in mitigation or otherwise. Counsel's strategy was to present petitioner’s case solely via his closing argument to the jury. The court found both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington and held that petitioner did not receive effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of his trial, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus setting aside his capital sentence and, unless the State provides him with a new penalty phase, requiring the imposition of a life sentence. View "Hardwick v. Secretary, FL Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging copyright infringement claims under 17 U.S.C. 501. Plaintiff holds the copyright to a candid photograph of himself which he considers unflattering and embarrassing. Defendant copied the photo into several scathing blog posts she wrote about plaintiff and his business practices. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, arguing that the district court erred in finding defendant was entitled to summary judgment based on her affirmative defense that her use of the photo constituted fair use under 17 U.S.C. 107. The court concluded that the three factors in the court's fair use inquiry - the purpose and character of the work, the nature of the work, and the effect of the use on the potential market - weigh in favor of defendant; the amount and substantiality of the work is neutral; and after weighing all four factors, the court's analysis tilts strongly in favor of fair use. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant because every reasonable factfinder would conclude the inclusion of the photo in her blog posts constituted fair use. View "Katz v. Chevaldina" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams of cocaine and the district court sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months' imprisonment because he had two prior felony drug convictions. Petitioner argued that the district court erroneously admitted evidence and that the evidence presented was insufficient to support his conviction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Petitioner then filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, but he was denied relief and denied a certificate of appealability (COA). In this appeal, petitioner challenged the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court committed no error when it dismissed the petition after determining that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the section 2241 petition. View "Harris v. Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit asserting claims for, among other things, unlawful arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law, claiming that he was unlawfully arrested without probable cause based only on his refusal of an officer’s request to provide biographical information for a report. The court held that, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the government may not conduct the equivalent of a Terry stop inside a person’s home. However, in this case, because the law on this point was not clearly established in this Circuit, the court affirmed the district court’s entry of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to the officer, who reached into plaintiff’s home to arrest and handcuff him when, in the course of what the officer described as a Terry stop, plaintiff declined to identify himself in response to the officer's questioning. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's state-law claim for failure to establish a claim. View "Moore v. Pederson" on Justia Law