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

The Michigan Department of Corrections agreed to house LaFountain at Lakeland in exchange for dismissal of his lawsuits. LaFountain wanted assignment to Lakeland to enable family visits and avoid further retaliation from Muskegon correctional officers. After the transfer, LaFountain filed new grievances, alleging selective enforcement of housing-unit rules based on race. He was transferred back to Muskegon. When LaFountain arrived at Muskegon, his typewriter was missing. He filed another grievance. At Muskegon, he was assigned to a cell with Riley, a mentally ill prisoner. Riley threatened LaFountain and kept him awake with lights and noise. LaFountain filed a grievance, alleging retaliation. After Riley threatened LaFountain’s life, LaFountain refused to remain in his cell and spent eight days in segregations. Each new shift ordered LaFountain to continue celling with Riley. Every time that he refused, the officers cited LaFountain for major misconduct, causing forfeiture of 770 days of good-time credits. The district court reviewed his civil rights suit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and dismissed it, 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) & 1915(e)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. 1997e(c)(1). The Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal of certain of the retaliation claims based on the transfer to Muskegon, the typewriter damage, and the cell assignment. View "LaFountain v. Harry" on Justia Law

The Michigan State Real Estate Transfer Tax, MICH.COMP.LAWS 207.521, and the County Real Estate Transfer Tax, section 207.501, impose a tax when a deed or other instrument of conveyance is recorded during the transfer of real property. The tax is imposed upon “the person who is the seller or grantor.” State and county plaintiffs sought to recover transfer taxes for real property transfers recorded by Fannie Mae, a corporation chartered by Congress to “establish secondary market facilities for residential mortgages,” in order to “provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages,” and “promote access to mortgage credit throughout the Nation,” 12 U.S.C. 1716; Freddie Mac, also a corporation chartered by Congress for substantially the same purposes; and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an independent federal agency, created under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 4617, which placed Fannie and Freddie into conservatorships, 12 U.S.C. 4617(a)(2). When Congress created defendants, it expressly exempted them from “all” state and local taxes except for taxes on real property. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, reasoning that “transfer taxes are excise taxes, not taxes on real property. The Sixth Circuit reversed. View "Genesee Cty, v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency" on Justia Law

In 2005 the Blewetts were convicted of crack cocaine offenses and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 10 years each under the 100-to-1 crack cocaine law, based on the quantity of crack cocaine possessed. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 as implemented by new sentencing guidelines, has substantially reduced crack cocaine sentences, including the mandatory minimum sentences, 21 U.S.C. 841(b). If the Blewetts were sentenced today, they would not be subject to a statutory minimum because the quantity of crack involved falls below the threshold for any statutory minimum. The district court denied retroactive resentencing under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)2 and 28 U.S.C. 994(u)3. The Sixth Circuit reversed, noting that the old 100-to-1 crack cocaine ratio has led to the mass incarceration of thousands of nonviolent prisoners under a law widely acknowledged as racially discriminatory; thousands of inmates, most black, languish in prison under the old, discredited ratio because the Fair Sentencing Act was not made explicitly retroactive by Congress. Judicial perpetuation of the discriminatory mandatory minimum crack sentences for those defendants sentenced under the old crack sentencing law would violate the Equal Protection Clause. View "United States v. Blewitt" on Justia Law

A confidential informant told law enforcement that he had seen cocaine and what he considered to be drug dealing at Brown’s house. An officer sought a warrant to search Brown’s home; in the affidavit, the officer recounted what the informant had told him. A federal magistrate issued the warrant and, upon executing it, law enforcement found cocaine, a Beretta pistol, which Brown admitted was his, and $4,700 in cash, in Brown’s home. Brown moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing that the affidavit failed to establish probable; in the alternative, Brown argued for a Franks hearing, asserting that the affidavit contained false statements. The district court denied the motion. Brown was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and possession, as a felon, of a firearm, 15 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and sentenced to 17-1/2 years’ imprisonment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the affidavit established probable cause, that the court did not err in refusing a Franks hearing, and that the conviction did not constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Crouch was piloting his Piper Lance II single-engine airplane with Hudson as passenger. After losing engine power at an altitude of 5000 feet, and finding it impossible to reach an airport, Crouch made a forced landing in a field near Bardstown. The plane’s engine was manufactured in 1978 and overhauled in 2005, with installation of a rebuilt magneto that allegedly detached, causing the crash. Both occupants survived but suffered serious permanent injuries, including paraplegia. The district court dismissed, on summary judgment, their allegations that the aircraft engine manufacturer was liable for negligently failing to warn airplane owners and operators, and failing to notify regulatory authorities, of defects in the engine and its components, finding that the allegations failed to make out a claim in avoidance of the applicable period of repose under the General Aviation Revitalization Act, 49 U.S.C. 40101. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs did not show or even allege that a revised overhaul manual contained a substantive alteration that caused harm and the evidence did not support a theory that defendants withheld information. View "Crouch v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Hill, Director of Risk Management for Detroit Public Schools invited Washington to submit a proposal for a wellness program for DPS employees. Washington and others joined Associates for Learning (A4L) and submitted a proposal quoting $150,000 for a pilot study. Contrary to DPS policy, Hill did not open competitive bidding or execute a written contract, and made payments by wire transfer, rather than by check. Hill, who later left DPS testified that he met with Washington to discuss larger amounts. Washington paid Hill five percent of the invoice amount for assistance in getting the invoices paid. Invoices totaling more than a million dollars for “future work” were paid. The partners met in public places to distribute cash. Washington was convicted of conspiracy to commit program fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371 and 666, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956. The district court enhanced Washington’s base offense level by 22 levels, finding that Washington was an “organizer or leader” and that the amount of loss to DPS was more than $2.5 million, and sentenced her to 84 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Washington was not prejudiced by errors made by counsel and that the evidence was sufficient. View "United States v. Washington" on Justia Law

German law requires all children to attend public or state-approved private schools. The Romeikes, parents of five young children, feared that the public school curriculum would influence their children against Christian values” and chose to home-school. The government imposed fines for each unexcused absence. Once, police went to the Romeikes’ house and escorted the children to school. The next time, four adults and seven children from the Romeikes’ home-schooling support group intervened, and the police, reluctant to use force, left the premises without the children. The family traveled to the U.S. to seek asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), which applies to those who have a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Board of Immigration Appeals found that German authorities have not singled out the Romeikes in particular or home-schoolers in general for persecution and denied their petition. The district court and Seventh Circuit upheld the decision. The German law does not on its face single out any protected group, and the Romeikes did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the law’s application turns on prohibited classifications or animus based on any prohibited ground. View "Romeike v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Michigan legislature enacted laws that barred sexually oriented businesses from displaying signs on the premises that contained more than “words or numbers,” Mich. Comp. Laws 125.2833; and imposed similar restrictions on off-site billboards, Mich. Comp. Laws 252.318a. In response to a First Amendment challenge, the district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement. The state stipulated to a final judgment declaring both laws facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoining enforcement. Two months later, Platinum, represented by the same attorney who had won the first lawsuits, sued the same defendants, challenging the same laws on the same free speech grounds. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The legal possibility that “this Governor or this Attorney General will enforce these laws in the face of these injunctions is: zero.” Platinum Sports has no cognizable theory of injury. View "Platinum Sports Ltd. v. Snyder" on Justia Law

Smith, aged 20, took a cell phone charger. The store manager intercepted him and Smith revealed the open package, with part of the charger removed. Smith refused to stay while the manager called the police. Officers Stoneburner and Knapp interviewed store employees, reviewed a security videotape and went to the Smith house. Smith’s brother met the officers at the door, then went into the house. Stoneburner followed and asked Smith to step outside. Smith, his mother (Donnetta), and his brother complied. Smith denied stealing or cutting the charger and allowed Stoneburner to pat him down. Stoneburner found only a lighter. Stoneburner followed Smith back inside, grabbed Smith by the wrist, and pulled Smith back outside. Stoneburner collided with Donnetta, causing her to hit the side of the house. Stoneburner bent Smith over the railing. Smith stiffened himself. Stoneburner and Knapp each grabbed an arm and pressed his head against the wall as they handcuffed him. Smith pled guilty to disturbing the peace. The Smiths filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Stoneburner unconstitutionally entered their home twice and excessive force. The district court denied qualified immunity on all claims and granted summary judgment in favor of Smith on the second entry into the house. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of immunity. View "Smith v. City of Sturgis" on Justia Law

The parents and the grandmother of two black children sued the Nashville Board of Public Education on behalf of their children and all black students in the District whose school assignments were adversely affected by the elimination of the mandatory noncontiguous transfer zones. They allege that the Rezoning Plan eliminated the desirable practice of being bused to a good, racially diverse school and replaced it with two inferior choices: staying in a bad, racially isolated neighborhood school or being bused to a bad, racially diverse school. They claim that has led to resegregation in violation of the students’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The district court ruled in favor of the Board. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the change serves legitimate state interests in school under-utilization. The Plan actually solved the problem that many schools were operating at levels below what their resources and infrastructure would permit, while other schools were overflowing. The court stopped short of endorsing the Plan, noting that certain students in poor neighborhoods had to share textbooks; that the racial achievement gap apparently exists much as before; and that Nashville public-school students as a whole continue to do poorly after the Plan. View "Spurlock v. Fox" on Justia Law