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

Defendant pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g),and was sentenced to 180 months, the minimum under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B), based on two Tennessee convictions for violent felonies and one Tennessee conviction for a serious drug offense. He conceded one serious drug offense and one violent felony (aggravated assault), but objected to the conclusion that his conviction for facilitation of aggravated robbery qualified as a violent felony. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Under Tenn. Code 39-13-401, 402, conviction for facilitation of aggravated robbery requires proof that defendant knowingly provided substantial assistance to another whom he knew intended to steal property from a victim by using a real or disguised weapon or by causing serious bodily injury. Aggravated robbery involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another and is a violent felony

Convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 1983, petitioner exhausted Ohio state appeals and collateral attack. After dismissing his first habeas corpus petition, the federal district court granted conditional relief, was overturned by the Sixth Circuit, reopened the petition, and granted relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. At sentencing, counsel's mitigation strategy was to portray petitioner as a good person who lost his temper under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Counsel pursued this strategy despite having available the reports of several court-appointed mental health experts, which hinted at petitioner's difficult upbringing but did not provide specific details about his severely impoverished and abusive childhood. Despite these reports, counsel did not conduct an investigation into petitioner's background or interview any of his family members. Had they done so, there is a reasonable probability that the additional mitigating evidence would have led at least one of the panel judges to vote against the death penalty.

Two members of a program advertised as providing healthcare discounts to consumers sued, seeking to represent a class of 30,850. They claimed violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act as well as Ohio’s common law prohibition against unjust enrichment in that healthcare providers listed in the discount network that had never heard of the program, and that newspaper advertisements, designed to look like news stories were deceptive. The district court exercised jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), which grants jurisdiction over class actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and the parties are minimally diverse. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The consumer-protection laws of many states, not just of Ohio, govern the claims and there are many factual variations among the claims, making a class action neither efficient nor workable nor above all consistent with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Petitioner murdered his three sons as they slept in their home, two days after his wife served him with divorce papers. An Ohio court sentenced him to death. His appeals and collateral challenges in state court were unsuccessful and federal courts denied. habeas corpus. His execution for November 15, 2011. The district court denied his Rule 60(b) motion to reopen his habeas petition and a motion to stay his execution. The Sixth Circuit denied a stay of execution. Petitioner waited too long to file his Rule 60(b) motion and offered no justification for the delay. He has known about the factual underpinnings of his conflict-of-interest and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments since 2006. Those arguments have already been addressed and are barred from further review. Petitioner also cannot overcome the bar on second or successive habeas petitions.

Plaintiffs bred their dogs to each other and advertised 11 puppies for sale. Undercover animal services officers visited on the pretense of interest in the puppies. Without a warrant or consent, officers re-entered the home and took all the dogs, stating that they could confiscate the dogs because plaintiffs did not have a breeder's license and that if more than one dog were unlicensed, they could seize all the animals. Neither adult dog was licensed. Before the dogs were released, the adult dogs were neutered, all had identification microchips inserted, and plaintiffs purchased a breeder's license and paid $1,020.95. Plaintiffs were never provided written notice of alleged ordinance violations. The dogs contracted infections that required expensive veterinary treatment. The district court rejected plaintiffs' state law and constitutional claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Plaintiffs were not operating a kennel and were not required to obtain a license for a single litter. The court rejected an argument that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by using subterfuge, but found that plaintiffs stated a claim with respect to the second, warrantless entry. Characterizing the release of the dogs as having elements of a shakedown, the court found that plaintiffs stated a claim for procedural due process claims. The court rejected substantive due process and equal protection claims.

A citizen of Côte d’Ivoire, charged with removability as an alien present without having been admitted or paroled, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, and cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge found petitioner not credible, relying on an inconsistency in a medical record. After filing a notice of appeal, petitioner's new counsel discovered that the medical record had been translated incorrectly and submitted an affidavit from the company that translated the record and a corrected translation. The Sixth Circuit stayed the appeal to allow consideration by the Board of Appeals because the translation error appeared to have contributed substantially and directly to the adverse credibility determination.

During an investigation of home invasions, officers were told that plaintiff's boyfriend was a participant and that property had been taken to plaintiff's apartment. Officers executed a no-knock search. Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court found that an officer had violated the Fourth Amendment, but was entitled to qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. Even if a disparity between the warrant affidavit and the warrant led to the inclusion of items without the requisite probable cause, a reasonable officer would not have recognized the discrepancy and would have believed that probable cause for the warrant existed. The warrant established probable cause to search and the officer could seize any items that constituted evidence of home invasions. The district court erred in granting qualified immunity on a claim that the warrant was constitutionally deficient because it failed to describe with particularity some of the items to be seized. The warrant listed broad categories of stolen property, providing no basis to distinguish stolen items from plaintiff's personal property, although the officers had additional information about the stolen items that they could have included in the warrant.