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

Petitioner, convicted of two murders and sentenced to death, filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argues that certain newly discovered evidence that he could not have previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence is sufficient to establish clear and convincing evidence that, but for Brady and Giglio constitutional violations, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the murders. The court concluded that all of petitioner's proposed claims in the instant application are precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine, the prior-panel-precedent rule, or both, or otherwise failed to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Accordingly, the court denied the application. View "In re: Lambrix" on Justia Law

National Maritime filed suit against Burrell for amounts owed for management and custodial services provided for a vessel, National Maritime obtained a judgment in its favor, and then National Maritime discovered that Burrell transferred all of its assets to its owner, Glenn F. Straub. National Maritime initiated a supplemental proceeding to void the transfer and the district court entered a judgment against Straub. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the supplementary proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and the record supports the finding of a fraudulent transfer to an insider, Fla. Stat. 726.106(2). View "Nat'l Maritime Servs. v. Straub" on Justia Law

Defendants Odoni and Gunter appealed their convictions and sentences for multiple counts related to international investment fraud schemes. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Odoni's motion to dismiss his indictment for lack of personal jurisdiction; there was sufficient evidence to prove that Odoni knowingly or intentionally participated in the schemes to defraud underlying his convictions; the district court did not err in denying Odoni's motion for a new trial where, assuming arguendo, that Odoni's absence from a conference call violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43, any such error was harmless; and Odoni's 160-month sentence is substantively reasonable. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Gunter's motion to suppress electronic evidence, and the fruits thereof, which were seized by British authorities in the United Kingdom where Gunter had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the files when the U.S. officials examined them after the British officials reviewed the information before sending them to the United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Odoni" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former deputy sheriff for the county, filed suit against the Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity, and the county, alleging that defendants violated her rights when they wrongfully terminated her. On appeal, the Sheriff challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. Balancing the three factors of Eleventh Amendment immunity in Manders v. Lee, the court concluded that the Sheriff enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity against plaintiff's wrongful termination claims brought against him in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the Sheriff's motion to dismiss and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pellitteri v. Prine" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the termination of her visitation privileges with her inmate husband was in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment free speech rights. Plaintiff had made public protests, alleging that the Department of Corrections violated the constitutional rights of her husband and other inmates when the inmates were engaged in a hunger strike. Corrections officials appealed the district court's ruling to the extent that it denied them summary judgment after the hunger strike ended. The court concluded that, based on the cross-appeal rule, it may not entertain plaintiff's arguments with respect to the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the Corrections officials during the hunger strike. In regards to the Corrections officials' appeal, the court concluded that the Corrections officials are entitled to qualified immunity for both the period during the hunger strike and for the period after the hunger strike ended where the record established that the decision to terminate plaintiff's visitation privileges was lawfully made during the time at issue. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Jackson v. Humphrey" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of burglary, appealed the dismissal of his pre-trial habeas corpus petition. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of a dead-docketed indictment that has been pending for approximately nineteen years. The court held that a dead-docketed indictment, without more, does not constitute custody. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition because petitioner was not "in custody" in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Howard v. Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner and a Santeria priest, filed suit against prison employees, alleging violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb. Plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief, claiming that defendants violated his rights by refusing to allow him to receive his Santeria beads and shells. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under RFRA where the prison has offered no evidence to justify its cost and safety concerns. Defendants' generalized statement of interests, unsupported by specific and reliable evidence, is not sufficient to show that the prison restriction furthered a compelling governmental interest. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims for money damages under RFRA and grant of summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment claims. View "Davila v. Gladden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, sentenced to death for the murder of a mother and daughter, appealed from the district court's grant in part and denial in part of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 federal habeas petition. The State appealed from the part of the judgment granting petitioner relief based on his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel advised him, after he had entered a guilty plea, to waive his right to a jury in the sentence stage of his capital trial. Applying the prejudice standard from Hill v. Lockhart, the court concluded that petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel's deficient advice regarding the waiver of a jury trial and the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law. The court rejected petitioner's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the part of the district court's judgment denying habeas relief to petitioner and reversed the part of the judgment granting him relief. View "Lynch v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that Fayette County's at-large election system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10301, by effectively guaranteeing that no African-American would be able to participate in the political process through election to the Board of Commissioners (BOC) and the Board of Education (BOE), nor would African-American voters be able to elect representatives of their choice to either entity. The district court granted summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor, finding that the at-large election method used by both the BOC and BOE resulted in impermissible vote dilution. However, the court concluded that the district court failed to notice the BOE that it was considering awarding summary judgment against it; the district court weighed the evidence submitted by the moving parties, accepting the support proffered by plaintiffs and rejecting the contrary evidence presented by the BOC; and, therefore, without opining as to the correctness of the district court's substantive conclusions, the district court erred in its Section 2 determination on summary judgment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Georgia State Conference of the NAACP v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Experian under the Fair Crediting Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a), alleging that Experian negligently and willfully violated its duty under the Act to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of disputed information contained in his credit file. At issue was whether an allegation of a violation of section 1681i(a) requires the consumer reporting agency to have disclosed the consumer's credit report to a third party in order for a consumer to recover actual damages. The court concluded that, looking to the plain language of the Act, a consumer's credit report need not be published to a third party in order to entitle the consumer to actual damages under section 1681i(a). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's conclusion otherwise. View "Collins v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law