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

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against Polk County and two employees who worked at the jail, alleging that the Jail and its employees interfered with his right to communicate freely and confidentially with his attorneys by forcing him to scan his legal mail into a computer with a memory chip.  When Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at that Jail, the Jail required him to scan his legal mail into a computer that contained a memory chip. Though Plaintiff does not know whether anyone other than he read his mail, he worried that the Jail could and may have since it had access to the computer into which he had scanned his mail. Plaintiff sued Polk County and two employees who worked at the Jail. He alleged, among other things, that the Jail and its employees interfered with his right to communicate freely and confidentially with his attorneys by forcing him to scan his legal mail into a computer with a memory chip.   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to allow for the reasonable inference that the Jail’s mail-scanning policy infringed on his free-speech rights. However, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under the Due Process Clause. The court explained that because Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee and because his claim involves the deprivation of a “basic necessity” like access to recreational activity, he must satisfy the Eighth Amendment’s objective and subjective standards to prevail on his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. And that’s where his problem arises, as he argues only that the conditions of his confinement were objectively unreasonable. View "Rickey Christmas v. Lieutenant J. Nabors, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant filed an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400), on which she certified under penalty of perjury that she had never “committed a crime or offense for which she was NOT arrested.” Defendant was charged in 2012 with healthcare fraud and conspiracy crimes. In 2012, Lopez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. In 2021, the United States filed a complaint in the district court to revoke Defendant’s naturalization. The complaint alleged   had illegally procured her naturalization on the ground that she had failed to meet the requirement of “good moral character.” The government moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Defendant had illegally procured her naturalization because she had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. The district court granted that motion. It concluded that the conspiracy crime to which Defendant pleaded guilty overlapped with the statutory “good moral character.”   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that structuring a transaction to avoid a reporting requirement, as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii), is also not a crime categorically involving moral turpitude. The offense does not necessarily involve fraud. And, although the crime arguably involves deceit, it does not necessarily involve an activity that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved.” Thus, the court held that a violation of section 1956(a)(1)(B) is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude. View "USA v. Lisette Lopez" on Justia Law

Over 20 years ago, a group of Florida wine consumers and an out-of-state winery (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) sued the Director of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, alleging that certain provisions of Florida’s beverage laws unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state wineries. After the United States Supreme Court ruled a virtually identical statutory scheme unconstitutional, the Division agreed to the entry of a judgment declaring Florida’s direct shipment laws unconstitutional as applied to out-of-state “wineries.” The Division also agreed to an injunction prohibiting it from enforcing its direct shipment laws “against out-of-state vendors and producers.” Significantly, these last five words were absent from the parties’ proposed injunction and were added sua sponte by the district court. No one objected to the court’s addition of this language. However, 16 years later, the Division filed a motion in district court to “clarify and modify” the injunction. Specifically, the Division asked the district court to confirm that the injunction applied only to out-of-state wineries rather than out-of-state wine retailers generally. The district court denied the Division’s motion.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that here, the district court expressly determined that the injunction the court entered “accurately reflects the intent of the parties and the Court.” Rule 60(a) does not allow a district court to rewrite its decision any time a party later contends that the language is ambiguous. Thus, the court held that the district court did not err by construing the Division’s motion as made under Rule 60(b)(1) instead of Rule 60(a). View "Jerry Bainbridge, et al. v. Director of the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, seeking to recover damages he allegedly suffered in an accident with a U.S. Postal Service truck. To meet his burden to show that the crash caused his injuries, Plaintiff planned to rely on expert testimony from several doctors who treated him after the crash. the district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Both the “Court’s orders and Florida law are clear,” it said, that “to prove causation, prognosis, and/or future implications of the injury, the Plaintiff must satisfy Rule 26(a)(2)(B)’s requirements.” The district court held that none of Plaintiff’s filings satisfied those requirements and conducted no analysis on whether they satisfied Rule 26(a)(2)(C).   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the government. The court remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the court wrote that the district court should address whether Plaintiff’s disclosures complied with Rule 26(a)(2)(C), or it should issue a new scheduling order invoking its discretionary authority to adjust the default requirements of Rule 26(a)(2). The court affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The court explained that no rule requires any non-retained expert witness to file a written report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B). And whether a doctor is retained (or not) depends on whether she was hired to testify or to treat. But district courts retain the discretionary power to tailor disclosure requirements. The court wrote that here, the district court misunderstood that its power to require detailed submissions from Plaintiff’s witnesses was discretionary. View "Cajule Cedant v. USA" on Justia Law

Barges around Pensacola Bay were slammed around during Hurricane Sally, leading to significant damage—including to the Pensacola Bay Bridge, which was closed for months. Skanska, the construction company that owned the barges (and was working on replacing the Bay Bridge) faced hundreds of potential lawsuits. Some were directly related to property damage, but most were economic loss claims from nearby businesses that lost customers during the months-long closure of the bridge. Skanska filed what are called petitions for limitation of liability, one for each of its 28 barges. These petitions invoked the Limitation Act. the district court decided that Skanska could not limit its liability because its own corporate officials were responsible for the negligent acts that led to the barges getting loose in the storm. It dismissed the Limitation Act petitions—freeing the claimants to pursue litigation in state court. Skanska says the district court acted too fast and also disputed several of the district court’s other decisions.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Limitation Act allows a federal court to take over all negligence claims to preserve the vessel owner’s right to limit its liability and then proportionally distribute the available assets to the successful claimants. But only to the extent necessary to protect the right to limitation; it does not create an independent right to have the full merits of each individual claim decided in federal court when no limitation is available. Further, the court concluded that it saw no reversible error in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, its findings of fact, or its spoliation sanctions. View "Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. and Skanska USA v. Bagelheads, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appeals his sentence for possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. There are four issues on appeal: whether (1) the district court erred in imposing a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, under Section 2D1.1(b)(12) of the Sentencing Guidelines, (2) Defendant’s sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable, (3) technical malfunctions during Defendant’s sentencing hearing conducted remotely via videoconference violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of criminal proceedings, and (4) the district court erred by imposing conditions of supervised release in the written judgment that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant’s sentence in part, vacated in part, and remanded for limited resentencing as to the conditions of supervised release. The court held that the district court properly applied the enhancement for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Further, the court held that the district court did not impose a sentence that was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Moreover, the court held that Defendant is not entitled to resentencing because of the videoconference malfunctions. Finally, the district court erred by imposing conditions of supervised release not included in Defendant’s oral sentence. The court explained that the district court’s pronouncement here failed to reference the administrative order or otherwise indicate that the court was adopting conditions of supervised release beyond those mandated by statute. View "USA v. Jesus Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, says that he deserves a religious exemption from a Florida Department of Corrections rule that beards can only be a half-inch long. The district court agreed with him, and the Secretary of the Department does not push back on that substantive ruling. Instead, the Secretary argues that the decision was procedurally improper because an inmate must file a “Petition to Initiate Rulemaking” to satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s pre-suit exhaustion requirements. Plaintiff responds that the Secretary did not preserve the issue. 
 The Eleventh Circuit rejected both parties’ arguments and affirmed the district court. The court explained that though it was an open question when the parties argued this case, the Supreme Court has since unanimously clarified that a “purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment” is reviewable on appeal even if the losing party failed to renew its arguments at or after trial.   Further, when a state sets up a grievance procedure for its prisoners, as Florida has done, a prisoner must file a grievance and exhaust the remedies available under that procedure before he can initiate a lawsuit. But a prisoner need not do anything else. Florida’s three-step grievance procedure for settling prisoner complaints does not include filing a rulemaking petition, so a Florida prisoner need not seek rulemaking before he can sue. View "Durell Sims v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1). ACCA imposes a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence on violators of Section 922(g)(1) if they have three previous qualifying felonies. Because Defendant has two other qualifying felonies, Defendant’s eligibility for ACCA’s mandatory minimum turns on whether his Florida conviction for unlawful possession of a listed chemical is a “serious drug offense” because it “involves manufacturing . . . a controlled substance.” The district court counted the Florida conviction and sentenced Defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded this case for resentencing. The court held that a conviction under Florida Statutes Section 893.149(1) for possessing a listed chemical with reasonable cause to believe it will be used to manufacture a controlled substance is not a “serious drug offense” under ACCA. The court explained that possessing one ingredient to make a controlled substance with “reasonable cause to believe” that some person will use it to manufacture a controlled substance is too far removed from the conduct of manufacturing itself to satisfy the “necessarily entails” standard. View "USA v. Christopher E. Miles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against The University of Miami (Miami), alleging the school should refund a portion of the payments that she made for the Spring 2020 semester since she did not receive the expected benefit of in-person learning. Plaintiff marshaled a number of claims, including breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Miami filed a motion for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s claims, which the district court granted in full.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it is entirely valid for Plaintiff to take the position that Miami should have based its prorated refunds on a different day than it did. The problem, however, is that Plaintiff fails to present “more than a scintilla” of evidence to support her contention that Miami should have refunded 48% of the fees for the Spring 2020 semester. The court reasoned that an announcement extending spring break by itself does not support the contention that all fee-based facilities and services were suddenly unavailable to students such that Miami’s refund was inadequate. And while Plaintiff offers a report from an unsworn economist’s input as evidence, Plaintiff cannot rely on that report to show there is a genuine issue of material fact about this point. Unsworn reports may not be taken into account by a district court when it rules on a motion for summary judgment. View "Adelaide Dixon v. University of Miami" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were arrested by Sheriff’s deputies for stashing their client’s cell phone in a bag only minutes before the police executed a search warrant for child pornography on that phone.  Plaintiffs alleged that District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney ordered the arrest. Following the arrest, the DA, in a statement to the press, and ADA, on the courthouse steps, publicly accused Plaintiffs of concealing evidence of a crime and knowingly possessing child pornography. After Plaintiffs were acquitted they filed this federal lawsuit for unlawful arrest. The district court entered judgment against the Deputies and denied the DA’s and ADA’s motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The district court also denied the district attorneys’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ defamation claims.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claims. The court wrote that on remand, the district court should determine whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the defamation claims. The court held that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs. The court explained it believes “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests here.” However, even if Defendants made their allegedly defamatory statements as part of their official duties, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that state-agent immunity does not protect against intentional defamation. View "Megan Garcia, et al v. Pamela Casey, et al" on Justia Law