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

A Caucasian high school football player (H) accidentally hit an African-American team member (D) with his car, causing D to suffer a sprained ankle. H got out and apologized. D threatened to kill him. The principal had instructed staff to be lenient with African-Americans because too many were serving suspensions. Although the Code of Conduct prohibits threats, the school did not discipline D. D's parents threatened suit. The principal admitted suspending H for 10 days to "cover" himself and the school. H's witness statements were not provided to panelists in advance. H's attorney was limited to passing notes and not allowed to present witnesses. Employees were informed that they would lose their jobs if they attended the hearing. The board sustained the charge of reckless endangerment and suspension, so that it went on H's record. An appeal was denied. Before his suspension, college recruiters had approached H and a congressman had offered an appointment, the first step to attend a military academy. H alleges he lost those opportunities. The district court dismissed 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims for substantive due process violations, failure to train, and negligence; claims by H's parents; claims against individuals in their official capacities; claims against the board of education and the public school system. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss procedural due process and equal protection claims based on the conduct of three defendants and that those defendants are not protected by qualified immunity.

Petitioner was convicted of murdering a man and raping his daughter, setting their house on fire, and related offenses. At the mitigation hearing, his parents testified about an unpleasant childhood, but defense counsel did not present evidence of "horrific" conditions in records from Children’s Services and in affidavits from his siblings, including evidence of rape, incest, and sexual abuse, or present evidence of petitioner's attempt to help his younger sister. A psychiatric consultant, employed despite the fact that he was not a trained mitigation specialist, advised the attorneys to obtain those records, but they did not do so, nor did they prepare witnesses to testify. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel at the mitigation hearing and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus vacating the death sentence, unless the State of Ohio begins a new mitigation hearing within 180 days. Despite gruesome crime, there is a reasonable probability that, had the three-judge panel heard the true horror of petitioner's childhood, at least one of the judges would not have sentenced him to death; the Ohio court's conclusion to the contrary was unreasonable,

The owners bought property in 1995 and live there with their daughter. It is under the flight paths of runways of the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. In 2002, the owners filed a class-action mandamus action, seeking to compel the city to initiate appropriation proceedings, claiming that the level and frequency of flights so interfered with their use and enjoyment that the property had been taken for public use without just compensation. The state court dismissed. They tried again in 2008, citing expansion projects. The city removed the case to federal district court, which dismissed with prejudice. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The district court erred in applying res judicata; the claims based upon the 2004 and 2007 expansions could not have been raised in the 2002 Action and are premised on a new transaction or occurrence distinct from the subject matter of the 2002 Action.

Police investigated an airplane landing at an unstaffed airport in Jackson, Tennessee at 9:00 p.m., approached the plane, and asked three occupants for identification. A warrant check came up clean. The officers returned the identifications, chatted with the men for 10-15 minutes, and asked for consent to search the plane. The pilots refused, nervously, according to the officers, climbed back into the plane, and flew to Nashville, where local police discovered 70 kilograms of cocaine hidden in the plane. The district court suppressed the officers' account of what happened at the Jackson airport. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The evidence was not the product of an illegal seizure, so the exclusionary rule does not apply. Defendants' contact with police was relatively short in duration and non-threatening and defendants did not establish any causative link between the alleged police misconduct and the evidentiary discovery.

Defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and conspiracy and sentenced to 120 months in prison and payment of fines and assessments. In a separate trial he was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering and sentenced to 360 months, to run concurrently. in a consolidated appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly denied an entrapment instruction; there was never any meeting of defendant and the government agents and, hence, no inducement. Wiretap evidence was properly admitted. There was no evidence that the warrant contained intentional or reckless falsehoods and there was probable cause. Evidence concerning the amount of loss was properly admitted with respect to both cases and sentencing was reasonable, regardless of the defense theories about other possible causes of the loss.

Keahmbi Coleman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court imposed an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on Coleman's three prior Ohio convictions for burglary and attempted burglary. The court then sentenced Coleman to the mandatory minimum fifteen-year prison term. At issue on appeal was whether burglary or attempted burglary in an occupied structure was categorically violent for the purposes of the ACCA. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence enhancement, holding that because burglary or attempted burglary of an occupied structure creates a risk of physical injury that is similar to the risk posed by generic burglary, the offense is categorically violent under the residual "otherwise" clause of the ACCA.

Plaintiffs Carol Metz and others filed a putative class action against fifty-five banks, including Fifth Third. The claims arose out of a Ponzi scheme involving bogus promissory notes. Five months later, attorney Daniel Morris filed a motion to intervene on behalf of his clients. Attached to the motion was a complaint similar to Metz's complaint except it was premised on promissory notes issued by different entities. The district court granted the motion to intervene. After the district court had dismissed Fifth Third with prejudice, Morris filed an intervenors' complaint against Fifth Third. The complaint was virtually identical to the complaint attached to the motion to intervene Morris filed earlier. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and granted Fifth Third's request for sanctions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions, holding (1) the district court's imposition of sanctions under the bad faith standard was proper; (2) the record set forth sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision; (3) the district court properly sanctioned Morris under its inherent authority even though Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 also applied; (4) the district court did not deny Morris due process; and (5) the amount of fees awarded was not excessive.

Larry Gibbs was convicted of conspiracy to distribute heroin and was sentenced as a career offender to thirty years' imprisonment. Later, Gibbs filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that a prior state conviction for narcotics possession had been improperly assessed as a predicate trafficking offense under federal sentencing guidelines. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that Gibbs's failure to raise this claim during his direct appeal constituted a procedural default. Gibbs subsequently filed a motion to set aside the Court's judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), claiming that his procedural default should be excused because (1) he was "actually innocent" of the sentence he received, and (2) the claim he pursued was unavailable during his direct appeal. The district court denied Gibbs's motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) because Gibbs's argument was available to him on direct appeal, his procedural default was not excused; and (2) because a court could have reasonably believed a thirty-year sentence was appropriate in this case, Gibbs could not rely on "actual innocence" to excuse his procedural default.

Doctors filed suit, alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3279 and the Michigan Medicaid False Claim Act, as qui tam relators on behalf of the United States/ The claimed that the business defrauded the government by submitting Medicare and Medicaid billings for defective radiology studies, and that the billings were also fraudulent because the business was an invalid corporation. The federal government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed. Sixth Circuit affirmed. The doctors failed to identify any specific fraudulent claim submitted to the government, as is required to plead an FCA violation with the particularity mandated by the FRCP. A relator cannot merely allege that a defendant violated a standard (in this case, with respect to radiology studies), but must allege that compliance with the standard was required to obtain payment. The doctors had no personal knowledge that claims for nondiagnostic tests were presented to the government, nor do they allege facts that strongly support an inference that such billings were submitted.

Defendant, convicted of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and conspiracy, in connection with offering a bribe for favorable testimony in a business fraud case, was sentenced to 84 months' imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in refusing to give an entrapment jury instruction, in defining the corrupt intent required to convict as "characterized by improper conduct." Defendant acted for profit, was not reluctant to commit the offense, made the initial suggestion of the offense, and had little to no inducement from the government. The definition amounted to "invited error" and was not manifestly unjust. The sentence was reasonable; defendant knew the size and scope of the underlying crime at the outset.