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

Roland McCarthy, a white man, was hired as Finance Director by the City Commission of Cordele, Georgia, in 2017 and promoted to City Manager in January 2021. During his tenure, Joshua Deriso campaigned for chairman of the City Commission, expressing intentions to replace white employees with African Americans and to have an all-black City Commission. After winning the election, Deriso and other black commissioners voted to fire McCarthy and replace him with a black City Manager, Angela Henderson Redding. McCarthy was warned by Deriso and another commissioner, Royce Reeves, that he would be replaced due to his race and could not return to his former position because he did not "look like" them.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed McCarthy's complaint, ruling that he failed to state plausible claims of racial discrimination against the City. The court found that McCarthy did not sufficiently allege that the Commission acted with a racially discriminatory motive, as only one voting commissioner was alleged to have racial animus. The court also dismissed claims against Deriso in his official capacity as duplicative of claims against the City and dismissed claims against Deriso in his individual capacity, citing qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's dismissal of McCarthy's claims against the City. The appellate court found that McCarthy plausibly alleged that the Commission discriminated against him because of his race, based on Deriso's and Reeves's statements and the racial composition of the vote. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Deriso in his individual capacity, as he did not have the authority to make the official decision to fire McCarthy. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McCarthy v. City of Cordele Georgia" on Justia Law

Jo Ann Macrina, the former Commissioner of the Department of Watershed Management for the City of Atlanta, was charged with taking bribes from a contractor, Lohrasb “Jeff” Jafari. Macrina made several decisions that favored Jafari’s company in the bidding process for a city contract. After the contract was awarded, Macrina received $10,000 in cash, a diamond ring, and other perks from Jafari. She also went to work for Jafari’s company shortly after leaving her city position. Macrina later contacted the FBI to report possible corruption, but during interviews, she admitted to receiving gifts from Jafari, which she later retracted.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia admitted portions of a recorded conversation between Macrina and federal agents, as well as the City of Atlanta’s Code of Ethics, over Macrina’s objections. The court also declined to give Macrina’s proposed jury instruction that any payments received after an official act were a gratuity and not a bribe. The jury convicted Macrina of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, and she was sentenced to 54 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the recorded conversation and the Code of Ethics, as both were relevant to proving Macrina’s corrupt intent. The court also found that the district court’s refusal to give Macrina’s proposed jury instruction was not an abuse of discretion, as the instruction misstated the law by failing to acknowledge that a payment received after an official act can still be considered a bribe if there was an agreement to accept the payment before the act was completed. View "USA v. Macrina" on Justia Law

Affordable Aerial Photography, Inc. (AAP) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Property Matters USA, LLC (Property Matters) and Home Junction Inc. (Home Junction) in the Southern District of Florida. AAP alleged that Property Matters used a copyrighted aerial photograph on its website without permission. The photograph, created by AAP in 2010, was registered with the Register of Copyrights in 2018. Property Matters moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. Before the court ruled on the motion, AAP voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).The district court denied Property Matters' motion for attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, concluding that Property Matters was not the prevailing party because the voluntary dismissal did not materially alter the legal relationship between the parties. The court applied the discovery rule, determining that AAP discovered the alleged infringement in February 2022, making the claim timely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that a defendant is not the prevailing party under § 505 when a plaintiff’s action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court emphasized that prevailing-party status requires a judicial rejection of the plaintiff’s claim, which did not occur in this case. Therefore, Property Matters was not entitled to attorney’s fees. View "Affordable Aerial Photography, Inc. v. Property Matters USA, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Johnnie Davis, who was convicted of committing multiple carjackings in Montgomery, Alabama. Before his trial, Davis sought to suppress evidence obtained through a geofence warrant that tracked his girlfriend’s phone and his inculpatory statements made after his arrest. He also argued that the government failed to prove his intent to cause death or serious harm during the carjackings. The district court denied his motions.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama initially reviewed the case. Davis moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the geofence warrant and his post-arrest statements, arguing that the warrant was invalid and that he should have been presented to a federal magistrate judge before being interviewed. The district court found that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant and that the federal presentment requirements did not apply as he was in state custody. The court also found sufficient evidence of Davis’s intent to cause death or serious harm and denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Davis lacked Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the geofence warrant because the search did not disclose any information about his own electronic device and only reflected his limited movements in public areas. The court also agreed with the district court that the federal presentment requirements did not apply since Davis was in state custody and there was no improper collusion between federal and state law enforcement. Finally, the court found that Davis’s use of a gun during the carjackings sufficiently established his intent to cause death or serious harm. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decisions. View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

In the early morning of August 26, 2021, an Uber driver named J.T. picked up Terius Thomas in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Upon reaching the drop-off location, Thomas threatened J.T. with a firearm and demanded his wallet. A struggle ensued, and Thomas exited the vehicle without obtaining the wallet. As J.T. drove away, he heard two gunshots, and responding officers later found shell casings and a bullet hole in J.T.'s car. Thomas was indicted on charges of attempted Hobbs Act Robbery and using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. He pled guilty to the robbery charge, and the firearm charge was dismissed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida calculated Thomas's guidelines range based on a total offense level of 24 and a criminal history category (CHC) of III, resulting in a range of 63 to 78 months' imprisonment. The court noted Thomas's extensive criminal history, including juvenile offenses and pending burglary charges, and granted the government's motion for an upward variance, sentencing Thomas to 120 months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. Thomas did not object to the CHC calculation at sentencing but later appealed, arguing that the miscalculation affected his substantial rights and that his sentence was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that although the district court erred in calculating Thomas's CHC, the error did not affect his substantial rights. The appellate court noted that the district court's extensive comments indicated that the sentence would have been the same regardless of the guidelines range. The court also found that the sentence was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, given Thomas's criminal history and the severity of the offense. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

A civilian, Clarissa Gilmore, was strip-searched while visiting her incarcerated husband at Smith State Prison in Georgia. During the search, officers manipulated her breasts, ordered her to bend over, and felt between her buttocks with a gloved hand. The officers did not inform her of the reasons for the search, and no contraband was found. Gilmore sued the officers and the Georgia Department of Corrections, claiming the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the officers, finding that the search did not violate clearly established law and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officers acted within the scope of their discretionary authority and that there was no clearly established requirement for reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip search of a prison visitor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed that the strip search violated Gilmore’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that correctional officers must have at least reasonable suspicion that a visitor is concealing contraband before conducting a strip search. However, the court also found that no Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent expressly prohibited suspicionless strip searches of prison visitors at the time of the search. As a result, the law was not clearly established, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves two groups of Montgomery residents who were jailed for failing to pay traffic fines. They sued the City of Montgomery, a private contractor (Judicial Correction Services, Inc.), and a lawyer (Branch D. Kloess), alleging that the process of converting fines into jail sentences violated the U.S. Constitution and Alabama law. The plaintiffs sought to certify their claims as class actions, arguing that the City and its contractors systematically failed to conduct proper inquiries into their ability to pay before jailing them.The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied class certification in both cases. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, particularly the predominance and superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The court concluded that the claims would require individualized inquiries into each probationer's circumstances, such as whether they were given proper hearings and whether the City or its contractors acted wrongfully or in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of class certification. It agreed that the plaintiffs' claims necessitated individualized proof, making it difficult to resolve the issues on a class-wide basis. The court emphasized that the evidence required to prove the claims, such as records of what happened at individual probation hearings, was not available on a common, class-wide basis. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' claims involved a variety of individual incidents rather than a single, systemic issue that could be addressed collectively.In summary, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification, as the plaintiffs' claims required individualized inquiries that did not satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The decision to deny class certification was affirmed. View "Carter v. The City of Montgomery" on Justia Law

The case involves a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) brought by Relators against Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) and Native American Services Corporation (NASCO). The Relators allege that GAIC and NASCO fraudulently took control of DWG & Associates, Inc. (DWG), a company that had graduated from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 8(a) program but was still performing on 8(a) contracts. The 8(a) program is designed to help small, disadvantaged businesses compete for federal contracts. DWG, initially owned and controlled by a disadvantaged individual, Gose, lost its eligibility when GAIC and NASCO allegedly took over its ownership and control without notifying the SBA or seeking a waiver, as required by the program's regulations.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the Relators' claims with prejudice. The court found that DWG, having graduated from the 8(a) program, was no longer a "participant" and thus not subject to the program's ownership and control requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that Relators failed to allege any false claims. Additionally, the court held that fraudulent inducement related to bidding on government contracts was not actionable under the FCA and that Relators failed to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) for pleading fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. The appellate court held that a business that has graduated from the 8(a) program but is still performing on 8(a) contracts remains a "participant" and is subject to the program's ownership and control requirements. The court further held that submitting bids and claims for payment under these circumstances without notifying the SBA or obtaining a waiver could constitute an actionable claim under the FCA. The court also found that Relators' complaint met the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) by providing sufficient details about the alleged fraudulent conduct, including the specific contracts, task orders, and the date DWG became ineligible to bid. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Berry v. Native American Services Corporation" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Peters Young was convicted of conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks from federal reimbursements for medical creams and lotions dispensed by pharmacies she worked with. The district court sentenced her to 57 months in prison and ordered her to pay $1.5 million in restitution and forfeiture, representing the gross proceeds she controlled during the conspiracy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida initially reviewed the case. Young challenged her conviction, restitution order, and forfeiture judgment, arguing insufficient evidence for her conspiracy conviction, improper calculation of restitution, and errors in the forfeiture amount. The district court denied her motion to set aside the verdict and sentenced her, including the contested financial penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Young’s conspiracy conviction, finding sufficient evidence that she conspired with others, including a pharmacy, to receive kickbacks. The court also upheld the forfeiture judgment, ruling that Young was liable for the gross proceeds she controlled, even if she distributed some to co-conspirators. However, the court vacated the restitution order, agreeing with Young that the government did not prove the amount of loss it experienced due to her conduct. The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct restitution amount. View "USA v. Young" on Justia Law

Bryan Jennings was convicted of the murder and sexual battery of six-year-old Rebecca Kunash in 1979. He was found guilty of first-degree murder and other charges, and sentenced to death. Jennings's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court, and his initial state postconviction relief efforts were unsuccessful. He filed his first federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2002, which was denied, and the denial was affirmed on appeal.Jennings later filed additional postconviction motions in state court, including claims under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, alleging prosecutorial misconduct based on new evidence, such as an affidavit from a cellmate who testified against him. The state trial court held an evidentiary hearing but did not find the new evidence credible and denied relief. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed this decision.In 2018, Jennings filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, including the Brady and Giglio claims. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ruling it was a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), and denied Jennings's motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that Jennings's second-in-time § 2254 petition was indeed a second or successive petition subject to § 2244(b)’s restrictions, as established in Tompkins v. Secretary, Department of Corrections. The court concluded that Jennings's Brady and Giglio claims were ripe at the time of his first petition and thus did not fall under the exception outlined in Panetti v. Quarterman. Consequently, the district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Jennings v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law