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

Sentenced to death for a 1992r aggravated murder, petitioner was denied habeas corpus. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. First noting that petitioner failed to timely raise the issue in state court, the court rejected a claim of ineffective assistance for failing to file a motion to suppress the fruits of an illegal stop and arrest. Based on an in-person report of criminal activity, the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the petitioner and perform a pat-down. The Ohio Supreme Court found a statement, "I think I need a lawyer," was not an unambiguous request for counsel; even if the holding was incorrect, the evidence showed that the petitioner voluntarily reinitiated communication. The trial court conducted adequate inquiry before denying a motion to substitute counsel after the guilt phase of the trial. Petitioner did not establish ineffective assistance at the sentencing phase. Rejecting a "Brady" claim, the court stated that petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of a different result if the material at issue had been disclosed. The court also rejected a challenge to jury instructions concerning sentencing.

Petitioner, a native of Nigeria, entered the U.S. illegally in 1992 and married a citizen in 1995. After a child was born in 1996, he applied for adjustment of status. In 1997 he attempted to enter Canada under a false identity and immigration officials determined that he had previously committed thefts under a false identity. Petitioner was charged as removeable. Immigration judges denied various motions and, in 2003, was found to be removeable. Withholding of removal was denied. The BIA upheld the decision. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review, holding that it had jurisdiction to review a denial of change of venue motion. The IJ was within his discretion in denying transfer of venue; petitioner suffered no prejudice. The motion for remand was futile because petitioner is not admissible for permanent residence and had no basis to adjust his status (8 U.S.C. 1255(a)). Noting petitioner's contradictions and refusals to answer questions, the court held that substantial evidence supported finding that petitioner failed to establish the likelihood that he or his daughter would be persecuted or tortured if they return to Nigeria.

After being fired from his position as operations manager for a regional passenger airline, plaintiff sued, alleging "association discrimination" under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112(b)(4). Plaintiff is not disabled; his wife suffers from Polyarteritis Nodosa, a rare and debilitating autoimmune disorder. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. While his wife's condition may have precipitated plaintiff's poor performance, plaintiff did not present evidence that he was fired because of her condition, rather than his performance.

Almost 15 weeks after entry of a guilty plea and five days before the sentencing date, defendant, charged with possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)), moved for substitute counsel. The motion was denied and, after extensive questioning, the court allowed defendant to proceed pro se. After trial, defendant was sentenced to 360 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion and did not violate the Sixth Amendment by refusing to appoint a new attorney; the court adequately inquired and determined that the source of the conflict between the defendant and counsel was defendant's misunderstanding of the law. There was probable cause for defendant's arrest and detention, based on statements by an informant and officers' observations, and the search occurred after a warrant issues. Defendant's post-arrest statements were given voluntarily after he waived his rights; admission of evidence concerning defendant's struggle with officers was proper. The court's failure to strictly comply with the time for reviewing the sentencing report was harmless error. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 2372, does not apply.

In 2005 plaintiff, a long-time member of the operating engineers union (Local 324), was hired as a project developer and labor consultant; he was not initially authorized to negotiate with unions or to bind the company, but he did meet with various unions. Based on his meetings with other unions, he was expelled from Local 324. The expulsion did not interfere with his collective bargaining work. An ALJ concluded that Local 324 had violated section 8(b)(1)(B) of the National Labor Relations by restraining or coercing the company in its selection of a representative, but dismissed a claim under 29 U.S.C. 158(b)(1)(A) based on the termination of membership. The Board reversed, finding no violation. The Sixth Circuit upheld the decision. Plaintiff's duties extended only to investigation, not negotiation during the relevant period and information-gathering is not an activity protected by 8(b)(1(B), which protects employers, not employees.

While pursuing a vehicle that fled from the scene of a drug raid, officers saw a 12-year-old, apparently crouched behind a car while walking the dog, and ordered him to stay put. The boy ran into a house, an officer pursued, and "chaos ensued" because the boy's mother did not realize that her son's pursuer was an officer. Officers cuffed and removed mother and son and, subsequently, punched and pepper-sprayed the mother. In a suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, the district court denied the officer qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the denial was based on a finding that material facts were disputed.

Proposal 2, a successful voter-initiated amendment to the Michigan Constitution, became effective in 2006 and prohibited public colleges from granting "preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." The district court entered summary judgment upholding Proposal 2. The Sixth Circuit reversed, based on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and applying strict scrutiny because the enactment changed the governmental decision-making process for determinations with a racial focus. Proposal 2 targets a program that "inures primarily to the benefit of the minority" and reorders the political process in Michigan in such a way as to place "special burdens" on racial minorities. Admissions committees are political decision-making bodies and the Proposal is more than a mere repeal of desegregation laws. The court noted the procedural obstacles that would be faced by minorities favoring race-based admissions.