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

Bethel is serving a capital sentence at CCI. Following Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Policy, CCI officials implemented a policy prohibiting “orders for printed material placed by third parties through unapproved vendors.” An inmate’s family or friends could only place orders on their behalf through an approved vendor; orders from unapproved vendors had to “be initiated by the inmate and approved by CCI.” If an inmate received a package from an unapproved source, the inmate could return the package at the inmate’s expense or have it destroyed. Officials withheld books from Bethel that were not ordered by Bethel; he received notices explaining why the books were withheld and offering him the option of having the books returned or destroyed. Bethel later learned that other inmates had received religious books, which were initially withheld for being ordered by a third party but were exempted after being reviewed by the chaplain.Bethel filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an Establishment Clause claim but remanded Free Speech and Procedural Due Process claims and later affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The “publisher only” policy was neutral and supported by the legitimate penological interest of preventing the entry of contraband into the prison; there were reasonable alternative means for Bethel to acquire these books. Bethel received sufficient process following the withholding of his books through written notice, the grievance procedure, and the ability to return the book. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities because they did not violate Bethel’s clearly established rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. View "Bethel v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

In 2004, Kimball was convicted of multiple drug-trafficking, weapons, money-laundering offenses, soliciting murder, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment plus 15 years. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. In April 2020, Kimball sought compassionate release, asserting that there were extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release because he is at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 based on his age (67) and medical conditions (hypertension, heart problems, high cholesterol, and gout) and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of release.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, rejecting Kimball’s argument that the time he has already served—approximately 17 years—is sufficient to serve the section 3553(a) goals because his offense did not involve any “actual violence” and he is statistically unlikely to re-offend based on his age. The court noted that when it affirmed his effective life sentence, he was the “undisputed kingpin and mastermind” of a “massive cocaine-trafficking conspiracy.” The district court’s order noted that its decision rested at least in part on the section 3553(a) factors; courts may deny relief under those factors “even if ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reasons would otherwise justify relief.” Even if the district court “mistakenly limited itself to the commentary’s list of extraordinary and compelling reasons," that would not entitle him to relief. View "United States v. Kimball" on Justia Law

Reedy, a Michigan prisoner, was a 47-year-old African American, serving a DUI sentence. His cellmate, Hensley was a 53-year-old much larger Caucasian, convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child. Reedy claims that in June 2016, he told Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor Wade about Hensley's threats against his life. In July, Reedy told prison counselor West “that [his] bunkie had threatened [him] and we needed to move.” West allegedly responded, “I’ll get back with you,” but never did. Days later, Reedy and Hensley went together to West’s office. Reedy claims he “reiterate[d] [his] fear” West allegedly replied, Hensley "ain’t going to do nothing.” West claims Reedy remained silent, while Hensley stated, “You guys got to move this motherfucker” or “whatever happens . . . is going to be onto [you].” West claims that he told the men to work it out and that Reedy returned later and said that “everything was good.” The next morning, Hensley used a softball-sized rock in a laundry bag to beat Reedy while he was sleeping.In Reedy’s Eighth Amendment “failure to protect" lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court dismissed the other prison officials and, with respect to West, concluded that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in favor of Reedy as to both an objective, substantial risk of serious harm to Reedy before the assault and that West was deliberately indifferent to that risk. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Reedy, he has not created a triable issue of fact to support an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim. View "Reedy v. West" on Justia Law

In March 2005, Miles was indicted for murder, wanton endangerment, tampering with physical evidence, and being a persistent felony offender. Eight months later, law enforcement sent a hat recovered at the crime scene to a lab for DNA testing. The court granted the prosecutor several continuances, waiting for the DNA results for the hat. Miles himself filed an unsuccessful speedy-trial motion, arguing that the DNA testing was a “stall tactic.” The hat was negative for Miles’ DNA. Miles’s trial began 21 months after he was indicted.On appeal, the issues concerned a gun, found under Miles’s mattress but not linked to the shootings, and Miles’s nicknames. Miles appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court, arguing that the 21-month delay between his indictment and trial violated his Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights. Applying the four-factor test established by the U.S. Supreme Court, that court affirmed his convictions.In Kentucky habeas proceedings, Miles argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s references to the gun and to the prosecutor’s use of his nicknames. The Kentucky Supreme Court held that there was not a reasonable probability that the verdicts would have been different if his counsel had objected to the gun or nickname references. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Miles’s petition for federal habeas relief; the district court appropriately deferred to the Kentucky Supreme Court’s reasonable resolutions of Miles’s claims. View "Miles v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Tennessee Code 39-15- 202(a)–(h) requires the woman be informed, orally and in-person by the attending physician or by the referring physician that she is pregnant; of the probable gestational age of the fetus; whether the fetus may be viable; of the “services ... available to assist her during her pregnancy and after the birth of her child, if she chooses not to have the abortion”; and of “[t]he normal and reasonably foreseeable medical benefits, risks, or both of undergoing an abortion or continuing the pregnancy to term.” The law establishes a 48-hour waiting period that begins when the woman receives the mandated information, which is reduced to 24 hours in the event of a court order. The effect of the waiting period is that a woman seeking an abortion in Tennessee must make at least two visits to the clinic, except in the case of a medical emergency that prevents compliance.The district court declared the waiting period unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement but declined to rule on the equal protection claim. The Sixth Circuit denied a stay pending appeal. The district court’s factual findings compel the conclusion that Tennessee’s waiting period unduly burdens women’s abortion rights, under any of the cited precedents. Defendants—who bear the burden of persuading the court that a stay is warranted—did not challenge those factual findings. View "Bristol Regional Women's Center v. Slatery" on Justia Law

At a Michigan gun show, Turaani attempted to buy a gun. When the dealer ran Turaani’s name through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, he received a “delay” response, requiring the dealer to wait three days before completing the sale. The next day, FBI agent Chambers visited the dealer to see what information Turaani had provided and explained that “we have a problem with the company” Turaani “keeps.”. He showed photographs of Turaani with another person of apparent Middle Eastern descent, whom the dealer did not recognize. Days later, Turaani contacted the dealer, who reported the visit from the FBI. While he “technically could sell the gun,” the dealer stated that he was “no longer comfortable doing so.” Turaani sued the FBI's Director, Chambers, and the director of the Terrorist Screening Database, citing the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the stigma-plus doctrine, and 42 U.S.C. 1981.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case for lack of standing. Turaani focused on his “right to obtain a weapon” and the direct and indirect injuries that flowed from the dealer’s decision not to sell him one but the dealer’s decision not to sell the gun was an independent choice that the government did not require. Turaani failed to show that his injury was traceable to the FBI’s actions. There was no coercion; making an inquiry, and passing along ambiguous information, “is a distant cry from forcing action.” View "Turaani v. Wray" on Justia Law

Cretacci, a Coffee County Jail detainee, claims he was injured during a 2015 inmate protest, that the jail failed to distribute essential supplies after that protest, and that he was injured again in 2017 when he did not comply with an order to get on the ground. Cretacci's attorney, Justice, intended to file his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint electronically. On the evening before the limitations period expired on Cretacci’s claims stemming from the 2015 incident, Justice realized he was not admitted to practice law in the district encompassing the jail. The next day, Justice drove to the Winchester courthouse. That courthouse does not have a staffed clerk’s office; documents cannot be filed there. Justice took the complaint to Cretacci at the jail and told him to deliver it to an officer immediately because he could take advantage of the prison mailbox rule, which assesses the timeliness of inmate filings on the day they are handed to jail authorities. Cretacci did so.The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that two claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that there were no constitutional violations underlying the remaining claims. The prison mailbox rule does not apply to prisoners who are represented by counsel; that rule is premised on the relaxed procedural requirements traditionally afforded to pro se prisoners who have no choice but to rely on the prison authorities to file their pleadings. View "Cretacci v. Call" on Justia Law

Schwamberger, a former deputy director of the Marion County Board of Elections sued the Board and its former director, Meyer, asserting, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that the defendants’ actions constituted First Amendment retaliation, violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Each Ohio County Board of Elections must have four members divided equally between the two major parties. The deputy director (Schwamberger) and the director (Meyer) are always members of opposite political parties, R.C. 3501.091, and deputy directors serve at the pleasure of their county boards. Schwamberger was terminated for impermissibly commenting on the election process, and therefore on policy and political issues related to her deputy-director position, after attempting to complain about errors in the 2018 election to the Board.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Schwamberger’s suit. Schwamberger’s speech proximately caused her termination but that speech implicated policy concerns; she was a policymaking employee, so her speech was unprotected. Schwamberger has not demonstrated a property interest in her position. Under Ohio law, she was an at-will employee who served at the pleasure of the Board. Even if the Board did act “arbitrarily” regarding her discharge, its actions do not create a constitutional claim. View "Schwamberger v. Marion County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Hanna was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. He exhausted state remedies, then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which the district court denied in 2009. The Sixth Circuit rejected Hanna’s claim that he was deprived of effective assistance in mitigation because his counsel failed to present a psychologist to testify about organic neurological defects and his troubled childhood. In 2019, Hanna sought leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition and moved to remand his pending petition, arguing that his second-in-time petition is not successive under section 2244(b).The Sixth Circuit denied both requests, rejecting Hanna’s argument that his new claims could not have been raised in his first petition because his previous habeas counsel suffered a conflict of interest. Hanna’s underlying claims of ineffective assistance in mitigation were raised in the previous petition. Hanna seeks to add new evidence. Hanna has also not shown that he meets the requirements of section 2244(b)(2). Hanna does not claim that his new petition relies on a new rule of constitutional law; he seeks an evidentiary hearing to prove certain facts and all of his claims relate to trial counsel’s representation in mitigation. Mitigation evidence categorically does not meet section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii)’s requirement that the new facts establish actual innocence. In addition, Hanna’s claims were procedurally defaulted or have been adjudicated in unchallenged state court decisions. View "In re Hanna" on Justia Law

Ohio law mandates that the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) be composed of three members from each of the top two political parties in the state, and an additional seventh member who cannot have any political affiliation, Ohio Rev. Code 3517.152(A)(1). The Libertarian Party of Ohio and its former chairman challenged the law as violating their First Amendment right to associate for political purposes.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the rejection of the suit. The court applied the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine, which prevents the government from denying a benefit on the basis of a person’s constitutionally protected speech or associations. Under precedent involving government employment, the issue is “whether the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved.” OEC Commissioners fall within the category of positions that are filled by balancing out political party representation, or that are filled by balancing out selections made by different governmental agents or bodies. It is “appropriate” for Ohio to consider political affiliation to serve its stated interest in maintaining partisan balance among the members of the OEC. View "Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Wilhem" on Justia Law