Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Horace Crump, an inmate at Lakeland Correctional Facility in Michigan, filed a § 1983 lawsuit against several prison employees, alleging they withheld treatment for his multiple sclerosis. The key issue at this stage is whether Crump can proceed with his lawsuit without paying the filing fee upfront, as he sought to proceed in forma pauperis due to his inability to pay.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Crump's complaint, citing the Prison Litigation Reform Act's three-strikes rule, which disqualifies prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. Crump appealed, disputing two of the three strikes counted against him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether Crump's prior dismissals counted as strikes under the Act. The court found that Crump's previous cases, which included dismissals for failure to state a claim and decisions not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, did not count as strikes. The court reasoned that the Act's language refers to entire actions being dismissed on specific grounds, not individual claims. Additionally, dismissals based on Eleventh Amendment immunity do not count as strikes under the Act.The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Crump's lawsuit to proceed without the upfront payment of the filing fee. View "Crump v. Blue" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Taylor was stopped by a police officer for speeding on an interstate in Knoxville, Tennessee. During the stop, the officer requested a K-9 unit based on Taylor’s suspicious activities, including his movements in the car, his criminal history, and the presence of multiple air fresheners. The K-9 unit indicated the presence of drugs, leading to a search of Taylor’s vehicle, which uncovered a firearm. As a felon, Taylor was prohibited from possessing a firearm. Taylor was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him beyond the time necessary to issue a traffic citation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied Taylor’s motion to suppress. Taylor then conditionally pleaded guilty, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the motion to suppress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop. The court found that the factors cited by the officer, including Taylor’s travel plans, criminal history, air fresheners, and movements, did not collectively amount to reasonable suspicion. The court held that the officer’s extension of the stop to conduct a dog sniff was not justified. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Joseph Scott Gray, a decorated U.S. Army veteran, was convicted of defrauding the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by lying about his health to obtain benefits. After leaving the military in 2003, Gray falsely claimed severe disabilities to receive increased benefits, including "individual unemployability" and "aid and attendance" benefits. His fraudulent activities were exposed when investigators videotaped him performing daily activities without assistance, contradicting his claims of severe disability.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan convicted Gray of several fraud-related offenses. The jury found him guilty, and the district court sentenced him to five years in prison and ordered him to pay $264,631 in restitution, covering benefits received from 2004 onward. Gray appealed, challenging the exclusion of an expert witness, the calculation of his criminal history score, the reasonableness of his sentence, and the restitution order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the exclusion of Gray's expert witness, Dr. Ennis Berker, as the proposed testimony was deemed irrelevant to the issues at trial. The court also found no procedural error in the calculation of Gray's criminal history score and deemed the five-year sentence substantively reasonable, considering the severity and duration of his fraudulent conduct.However, the court vacated the restitution order, ruling that it should not cover losses before January 2015, as the indictment only charged Gray with a conspiracy beginning in 2015. The case was remanded for recalculation of the restitution amount, limited to the period specified in the indictment. View "United States v. Joseph Gray" on Justia Law

Annette McEachin, a human resources manager, was seriously injured in a car accident in 2017 and subsequently filed a disability claim with Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Reliance approved her for long-term disability benefits, which were later extended after another car accident worsened her condition. McEachin underwent multiple surgeries and treatments for her physical injuries and also received treatment for mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, exacerbated by her son's suicide in 2019. Reliance paid her benefits for nearly four years but stopped payments in April 2021, concluding that her physical health had improved sufficiently for her to return to work.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that McEachin no longer had a physical disability as of April 2021 but ruled that her mental health disabilities entitled her to two more years of benefits. Both parties appealed the decision. Reliance argued that the district court misinterpreted the insurance policy, while McEachin contended that her physical disabilities persisted beyond April 2021.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that McEachin's physical disabilities alone justified her disability benefits until April 2021, meaning the 24-month mental health limitation did not apply until then. The court affirmed the district court's finding that McEachin's physical disabilities no longer rendered her totally disabled as of April 2021. However, the court vacated the district court's decision regarding the mental health benefits and remanded the case to consider whether McEachin's post-April 2021 medical evidence could toll the 24-month mental health limitation period, potentially extending her eligibility for benefits beyond April 2023. View "McEachin v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Ronda Jones was arrested by Officer Steven Naert after attempting to walk to the scene of her son's car accident. Jones had been drinking at home and was suspected by Naert of having driven the car while intoxicated due to her prior DUI arrest. When Jones tried to leave her home to check on her son, Naert arrested her for disorderly conduct, citing a Michigan statute that prohibits such behavior. The statute does not criminalize public intoxication alone; it requires probable cause to believe that the individual would pose a danger to others.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted Officer Naert qualified immunity on Jones's false arrest claim, holding that he had probable cause for the arrest. The court also granted summary judgment on Jones's malicious prosecution claim, concluding that Naert did not participate in the decision to prosecute her. Jones appealed these decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Officer Naert lacked probable cause to arrest Jones for disorderly conduct. The court found that Jones's actions did not indicate she would pose a danger to others by walking a short distance while intoxicated. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to grant Naert qualified immunity because Jones failed to show that the unlawfulness of the arrest was "clearly established" at the time. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim, as there was no evidence that Naert influenced the decision to prosecute Jones. View "Jones v. Naert" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Glenn Bowles, Kenneth Franks, and Robert Gardner, challenged the constitutionality of Michigan's Court of Claims Act. Bowles and Franks, former police academy instructors, faced employment actions after allegations of misconduct, while Gardner, a former doctoral student, faced expulsion and subsequent employment issues due to his advocacy for migrant workers. They argued that the Act violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by requiring Court of Appeals judges to serve on the Court of Claims, thus creating potential bias in appellate reviews and denying them jury trials.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed their complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing as they did not demonstrate how the Court of Claims Act directly caused their injuries. Additionally, the court held that Bowles's claims were precluded due to a prior federal lawsuit and concluded that the plaintiffs' constitutional claims lacked merit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court noted that the plaintiffs' injuries were not fairly traceable to the actions of Michigan's Governor and Attorney General, who were named as defendants. The court also found that the requested relief, an injunction against the enforcement of the Court of Claims Act, would not redress the plaintiffs' employment-related injuries. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds, modifying the judgment to a dismissal without prejudice. View "Bowles v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

Wayne County foreclosed on Tonya Bowles's property to satisfy her tax debt and sold it, keeping the surplus proceeds. Bowles filed a § 1983 lawsuit against the county and its treasurer, seeking to recover the surplus and to certify a class of similarly affected former property owners. The district court certified the class without discovery, relying on a similar case's decision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan certified the class in 2022. However, subsequent legal developments, including decisions in Fox v. Saginaw County and other cases, highlighted the need for a rigorous analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. These decisions emphasized the necessity of proving, rather than merely alleging, compliance with Rule 23's requirements and questioned the manageability of class actions in takings cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not conduct the required rigorous analysis of Rule 23's requirements. The court noted that the district court relied on an incomplete record and did not address several critical issues, such as the calculation of damages, potential unique defenses, and the role of third-party lienholders. Additionally, the court highlighted that Bowles's proposed class definition included claims for surplus equity, which are unmanageable in class actions and not permissible under recent case law.The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court instructed the district court to conduct a thorough analysis of Rule 23's requirements, considering recent legal developments and ensuring that Bowles can prove numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority. The court emphasized the need for a complete evidentiary record and a detailed forecast of how the litigation would proceed as a class action. View "Bowles v. Sabree" on Justia Law

Safiya Tayo Tukur Seldon, a native of Nigeria, entered the United States in 1992 using her sister’s passport and a tourist visa. In 1997, she married a U.S. citizen and obtained conditional permanent resident status. However, in 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) concluded that her marriage was a sham and terminated her conditional status, ordering her removal. Seldon did not appear at her initial removal hearing in 2002, leading to an in-absentia removal order. In 2011, she successfully moved to reopen her case, claiming she never received notice of the hearing.An immigration judge (IJ) in Detroit later sustained the charges against her, including marriage fraud, and ordered her removal to Nigeria. Seldon appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the IJ failed to inform her of her rights to apply for a waiver of removal and to seek asylum. The BIA dismissed her appeal, finding that she was not eligible for a waiver of removal and that the IJ had fulfilled his duty to inform her of her right to apply for asylum.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Seldon was not "apparently eligible" for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) because her failure to attend the interview was independent of her fraudulent actions. The court also found that the IJ did not err in failing to advise her of her right to apply for asylum, as her counsel had confirmed that she did not express fear of returning to Nigeria and would not be filing other applications for relief. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit denied Seldon's petition for review. View "Seldon v. Garland" on Justia Law

Eric Vaughn was pulled over for speeding, fled from the police, and discarded a pistol during the chase. As a convicted felon, he was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced him to 53 months in prison and three years of supervised release, including several special conditions.At sentencing, Vaughn objected to the first special condition, which allowed the probation officer to determine the frequency of drug tests and whether he needed alcohol treatment. He requested a more specific schedule, but the district court overruled his objection, stating it would consider guidance if Vaughn felt over-tested. Vaughn did not object to the second special condition, which allowed the probation officer to decide if his mental health treatment should be inpatient or outpatient.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Vaughn's appeal. Vaughn argued that the district court improperly delegated its judicial authority to the probation office by not specifying the details of his supervised release conditions. The court reviewed the first special condition de novo and the second for plain error due to Vaughn's failure to object at sentencing.The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not improperly delegate its authority. It found that the court's use of "shall participate" language in the special conditions was sufficient to meet statutory and constitutional requirements. The court also noted that probation officers are allowed to determine the specifics of treatment programs. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that there was no improper delegation of judicial authority in Vaughn's supervised release conditions. View "United States v. Vaughn" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Martavious Kincaide pleaded guilty to three federal firearms offenses in the Western District of Kentucky. Deandre Swain, a criminal defendant in Kentucky state court, sought to intervene in Kincaide’s case to unseal a document titled “Plea Agreement Supplement.” Swain believed this document might contain a cooperation agreement that could aid his defense in his state court case. The Western District of Kentucky requires that all plea supplements, which may contain cooperation agreements, be sealed to protect cooperators from potential harm.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied Swain’s motion to intervene. The court held that the General Order 2010-06, which mandates the sealing of plea supplements, was consistent with the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the order was the narrowest method to protect the safety of cooperators and that Swain’s specific interest did not override the need for consistency in applying the General Order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that there is no qualified First Amendment right of access to cooperation agreements. The court applied the “experience and logic” test from Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, concluding that there is no historical tradition of public access to such documents and that public access would not play a significant positive role in the functioning of the judicial process. The court emphasized that public access to cooperation agreements could endanger cooperators and undermine government investigations. Thus, the denial of Swain’s motion to intervene was affirmed. View "United States v. Kincaide" on Justia Law