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

Off-duty Richmond Kentucky Police Officers visited the apartment of April McQueen by invitation, where the four adults engaged in sexual activity that “included bondage and discipline, dominance and submission and sadism and masochism.” Later, McQueen visited her neighbor, and, concerned about her appearance because she was going to meet another man, explained what had happened and asked for an ice pack or medicine for her bloodied, swollen mouth. The neighbor insisted, over McQueen’s reluctance, that the incident be reported. An investigation ensued, but McQueen refused to cooperate. Her account of the extent of her consent varied. She stated that she wanted to “forget the whole damn thing.” During grand jury testimony, McQueen stated that she allowed the men to urinate in her mouth only because one had slapped her and scared her with his aggressiveness: “That part was not consensual.” She testified that she was still scared. McQueen also testified about pressure being applied by Sheriff Department personnel. After they were found not guilty, the officers filed suit against those who had been involved in the investigation and prosecution. The district court dismissed claims against two prosecuting attorneys, on grounds of absolute and qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "Rogers v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

CCRC employee Henschel was covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provided for seniority rights. Hel was involved in a motorcycle accident that resulted in amputation of his left leg. CCRC hired a temporary excavator operator for Henschel’s position. Henschel had hauled the excavator to the site 70 percent of the time and other CCRC employees, 30 percent. CCRC specified hauling as a function of Truck/Tractor Driver, but did not include hauling in its Operator-Excavator job description; it included an “Other duties assigned” task. Henschel sought a waiver to maintain his commercial driver’s license. The Michigan Traffic Safety Division requested, from CCRC, an evaluation of Henschel’s ability to perform essential job functions of a truck driver, including driving a manual transmission. CCRC did not limit testing to essential functions of a truck driver, but tested Henschel for every CCRC position. The Division allowed Henschel to retain his CDL, limited to automatic-transmission vehicles. CCRC did not try to return him to the excavator but attempted to find him a truck driver position in an automatic transmission truck. The lowest seniority truck driver declined to give up his truck. Before firing Henschel, CCRC did not ask other qualified drivers if they would be willing to haul the excavator. The district court entered summary judgment or CCRC. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the essential functions of the excavator operator position. View "Henschel v. Clare Cnty. Rd. Comm'n" on Justia Law

In 1993, Dixon and Hoffner beat their friend Hammer, tied him to a bed, stole his wallet and his vehicle, and then drove him into a remote area and buried him alive. One month into the investigation, Hoffner led police to Hammer’s body and Dixon provided a tape-recorded account of the kidnaping, robbery, and murder. At trial, Dixon presented no evidence and cross-examined only three of the government’s 15 witnesses. The jury convicted and recommended the death penalty, which the court imposed. Ohio courts rejected appeals and a post-conviction petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. Dixon filed a federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, improper jury instructions, improper exclusion of mitigating evidence at sentencing, and a violation of his Miranda rights. The district court denied the petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the state court thoroughly and thoughtfully reviewed the instructional error, and cured any error that may have occurred. Dixon presented no evidence of what his mitigation witnesses might have testified to and offered minimally helpful supporting affidavits. The state court’s conclusion that the exclusion of Dixon’s wrongful incarceration as a result of a prior false allegation was harmless was not contrary to clearly established federal law.View "Dixon v. Houk" on Justia Law

In 2009, Debtor had received an IRS Notice of Deficiency for tax year 2004, claiming additional taxes of $143,445.00, plus penalties of $28,689.00. Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in 2011. In 2011, Debtor received a Notice of Deficiency for tax years 2007 and 2008 claiming that $138,907.00 in additional taxes for 2007, plus penalties of $27,781.40, and an additional $109,648.00 in taxes for 2008, plus penalties of $21,929.60. Debtor challenged the notices. The Tax Court dismissed with respect to the notices for 2007-2008 because of the automatic stay. Post-petition, the Debtor received a $86,512.32 tax refund, based on his 2005 tax return. The Trustee claimed the refund, but Debtor returned the check to the IRS. The Trustee sought turnover of the refund; Debtor objected. The IRS tendered a check for $32,555.15 to Debtor, relating to 2005 taxes, which was received by the Trustee. Debtor sought a determination of tax liability pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 505(a)(1) and turnover of funds if the IRS’s claim was disallowed. The bankruptcy court held that the IRS’s claim of $226,142.85, pertaining to 2004 taxes, was nondischargeable and that the tax refund check for $86,512.32, which erroneously issued to the Debtor, was not property of the estate. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed as to priority and nondischargeability, because the lower court did not address the limitations period. View "In re: Winter" on Justia Law

Johnson stored marijuana in his Arkansas home for distribution in Tennessee. A conspiracy headed by others obtained large quantities of marijuana from a Texas supplier, who delivered to Johnson’s Blytheville home. Police observed three incidents of drug trafficking at Johnson’s home. Following a group of the conspirators in Blytheville, DEA agents arrested one of the drivers, who admitted to delivering four 300-pound loads of marijuana to Johnson. The officers subsequently stopped Johnson at his new Blytheville home and received permission to search it. In one bedroom and in a hallway closet, the officers found 237 pounds of marijuana and a handgun. They also seized $15,000 in cash, a black scale and three vehicles. Johnson pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell marijuana. Johnson accepted the facts as stated in his pre-sentence report, but objected to a two-level enhancement for using his home to distribute drugs. The district court applied the enhancement, sentencing Johnson to 97 months in prison, the low end of the guidelines range. The Sixth Circuit affirmed application of the U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. The amount of marijuana and the length of time he kept it there (eight months) justified the enhancement.View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Ortega, a U.S. citizen, began an 11-day sentence of home confinement for driving under the influence on March 18, 2011. He had to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times. With prior approval, he could go to work, the doctor and church. The corrections department received a detainer for Ortega from federal immigration authorities, who issued the detainer after seeing Ortega’s DUI conviction and noticing that Ortega’s name and birth date resembled, but did not exactly match, those of an unlawful alien. As a matter of policy, the local department incarcerates any individual with an immigration detainer. On March 19, officers took Ortega to the local jail, where he remained until his release on March 22. The department did not conduct its own investigation of Ortega’s citizenship. Ortega filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. The district court dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that city officers violated his rights against deprivations of liberty without due process and against unreasonable seizures when they carried out the detainer and that the immigration agent caused those violations by issuing the detainer, and stating that qualified immunity protects all but “the plainly incompetent,” View "Ortega v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement" on Justia Law

In 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of distribution of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); the plea agreement stated that his offense involved 109 grams of cocaine base and that the parties would recommend a sentence within the range in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The district court accepted the plea. Defendant was subject to a statutory minimum sentence of 240 months of imprisonment because the prosecution moved for a downward departure for Defendant’s substantial assistance to its investigation. The district court granted further reductions for acceptance of responsibility and timely indication of intent to plead guilty, yielding an advisory range of 130 to 162 months. The court imposed a sentence of 130 months. Four years later, the Fair Sentencing Act amended the cocaine base sentencing statute (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)). The district court found Defendant ineligible to have his sentence reconsidered. The Sixth Circuit vacated, to “give effect to Congress’s unambiguously expressed intent that the amended Guidelines achieve consistency.” Plugging the new statutory minimums and amended Guidelines into Defendant’s original sentencing formula would yield a sentence of 70 months. The government petitioned for rehearing en banc and, while the motion was pending, the court dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Doe" on Justia Law

In 2000, Rochow sold his interest in Universico to Gallagher and became President of Gallagher. As an employee of Gallagher, Rochow was covered under a LINA disability policy. In 2001, Rochow began to experience short term memory loss, chills, sweating, and stress at work. Gallagher demoted Rochow to Sales Executive-Account Manager. Because of his inability to perform his job, Gallagher forced Rochow to resign in January, 2002. In February 2002, Rochow experienced amnesia, was hospitalized, and was diagnosed with HSV-Encephalitis, a rare, severely debilitating brain infection. LINA repeatedly denied Rochow benefits stating that Rochow’s employment ended before his disability began. In 2004, Rochow sued Cigna, LINA’s parent company, alleging breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, 29 U.S.C.1104(a). In 2007 the Sixth Circuit affirmed a decision that denial of Rochow’s claims was arbitrary, not the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process, and did not appear to have been made solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries or the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries as required by ERISA. Rochow died in 2008. In 2009, the district court ordered an equitable accounting of profits and disgorgement of $3,797,867.92 under an equitable theory of unjust enrichment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Rochowl v. Life Ins. Co. of N. America" on Justia Law

Krafsur, a federal administrative law judge, hears social security disability claims, including deciding how much to award successful claimants in attorney’s fees. Krafsur alleges that Davenport, the chief judge in his office, told him that his fee awards were too low. Krafsur’s refusal to make higher awards allegedly prompted Davenport to reprimand him, deny him leave and withhold paychecks. Krafsur complained about Davenport’s actions to the Office of Special Counsel, which handles grievances from federal employees. Before the Special Counsel responded, Krafsur filed suit, claiming that Davenport’s actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments, citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which creates a cause of action against federal officers for constitutional violations; the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Tucker Act, which authorize lawsuits against the United States for constitutional violations, 5 U.S.C. 702, 28 U.S.C. 1346. The district court dismissed on the ground that the Civil Service Reform Act remedial framework is exclusive. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that Krafsur’s interpretation of the Act would make a muddle of its text, a shambles of its structure and a lost cause of its purpose. View "Krafsur v. Davenport" 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. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 as implemented by new sentencing guidelines, substantially reduced crack cocaine sentences, including the mandatory minimum sentences, 21 U.S.C. 841(b). If the Blewetts were sentenced today the quantity of crack would fall 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 crack cocaine ratio led to mass incarceration of thousands of nonviolent prisoners under a law widely acknowledged as racially discriminatory. Although the Act was not made explicitly retroactive by Congress, the court stated that judicial perpetuation of the discriminatory mandatory minimum crack sentences would violate the Equal Protection Clause. On reconsideration, en banc, the court held that the Act does not retroactively undo final sentences. The court noted a 142-year-old congressional presumption against applying reductions in criminal penalties to those already sentenced, 1 U.S.C. 109, and the 2012 Supreme Court decision,n Dorsey v. United States. View "United States v. Blewitt" on Justia Law