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

DiLuzio, owned Yorkville buildings that burned under suspicious circumstances. Fire Chief Klubert led the firefighting and coordinated with Mayor DiFilippo on a decision to demolish part of a building immediately, without inspection or formal decision. Klubert and DiFilippo ordered Officer Davis to find DiLuzio and bring him to a meeting. At that meeting, DiLuzio insisted the buildings could be repaired. DiFilippo ordered Nemeth to demolish most of the south building, but left part intact, even though it had suffered the worst damage. Days later, Police Chief Morelli (on orders from DiFilippo) approached DiLuzio’s son with a low-ball offer from an anonymous investor, to purchase the property “as is.” DiLuzio declined. Morelli approached DiLuzio with another offer months later. DiLuzio declined again. Morelli, Klubert, and DiFilippo began to issue citations, threatening $600 per day fines. The Village dismissed the first citation, which included false statements about inspections and authorizations. Morelli falsified a State Fire Marshall citation threatening $1,000 per day fines. The Village then passed a criminal ordinance concerning unkempt properties. Morelli charged DiLuzio, falsely notarizing his own signature. DiLuzio filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.summary judgment for defendants on some claims, but denied qualified immunity to DiFilippo and Klubert on the due process claim concerning demolition; to Morelli and Davis on substantive due process claims; and to Nemeth because he was not a state actor. View "DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville" on Justia Law

Based on allegations of felonious assault on an officer, Cleveland police arrested plaintiffs at home in the early morning when plaintiffs were wearing only boxer shorts. Police refused to retrieve additional clothing, issuing them jumpsuits after they arrived at the police station. Plaintiffs have repeatedly changed their stories. In their second lawsuit, plaintiffs, who are homosexual, allege that officers repeatedly struck them and violated their equal protection rights by forcing them to remain in their boxer shorts, and that these actions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. When the officers moved for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed affidavits based upon “personal knowledge and belief,” identifying, for the first time, which officer allegedly committed each act. The court struck the affidavits, explaining that it did not know which statements were based on personal knowledge, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and which were based only upon belief; without those affidavits, the record did not contain sufficient evidence to permit plaintiffs’ claims to survive. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavits and that, construing the remaining record in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Ondo v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

After obtaining terrorism convictions, then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Convertino came under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). An unidentified DOJ source leaked information about that investigation to Ashenfelter, a reporter. The Detroit Free Press published details, including allegations that Convertino withheld Brady materials and threatened a defense lawyer with a baseless criminal investigation. DOJ’s attempts to find the source were unsuccessful. The terrorism convictions were vacated. The defendants’ claims against Convertino under 42 U.S.C. 1983 were dismissed based on prosecutorial and qualified immunity. Convertino was found not guilty of obstruction of justice. Convertino sued DOJ, alleging that the investigation, leak, and disciplinary measures were in retaliation for his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Ultimately, a single claim remained--that DOJ violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, when its unidentified official leaked confidential information to Ashenfelter. The district court granted the motion to compel production from Ashenfelter. Ashenfelter asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at two depositions. The district court found that Ashenfelter had a reasonable basis for fearing that answering the questions would entail self-incrimination, sustained the assertion of privilege, and reduced its ruling to two written opinions—one public, and one sealed. Convertino unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, citing a statement by then-Attorney General Holder that the DOJ “will not prosecute any reporter.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the claims of privilege. View "Convertino v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

After obtaining terrorism convictions, then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Convertino came under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). An unidentified DOJ source leaked information about that investigation to Ashenfelter, a reporter. The Detroit Free Press published details, including allegations that Convertino withheld Brady materials and threatened a defense lawyer with a baseless criminal investigation. DOJ’s attempts to find the source were unsuccessful. The terrorism convictions were vacated. The defendants’ claims against Convertino under 42 U.S.C. 1983 were dismissed based on prosecutorial and qualified immunity. Convertino was found not guilty of obstruction of justice. Convertino sued DOJ, alleging that the investigation, leak, and disciplinary measures were in retaliation for his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. Ultimately, a single claim remained--that DOJ violated the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, when its unidentified official leaked confidential information to Ashenfelter. The district court granted the motion to compel production from Ashenfelter. Ashenfelter asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege at two depositions. The district court found that Ashenfelter had a reasonable basis for fearing that answering the questions would entail self-incrimination, sustained the assertion of privilege, and reduced its ruling to two written opinions—one public, and one sealed. Convertino unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, citing a statement by then-Attorney General Holder that the DOJ “will not prosecute any reporter.” The Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding the claims of privilege. View "Convertino v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law

Sergeant Boulton, working in the county jail, was a union leader. The union initiated mandatory contract arbitration with the Sheriff’s Office, at which Undersheriff Swanson testified regarding Taser, firearm, and CPR training. Boulton testified that Swanson had misrepresented the degree of training. The next day, Boulton was instructed to wear his uniform or business attire to subsequent arbitrations. When he later wore a blazer and golf shirt, he was investigated for failing to follow a direct order. Soon after, there was a short power outage at the jail. Boulton was told that there would be an investigation of his actions during the outage. Boulton was notified that subordinates had brought complaints against him and that the department was starting a new investigation. Boulton was “forbidden to inquire with any witnesses or investigators.” Boulton admits that he asked his subordinates for details about the investigation. Boulton was suspended without pay for several days and demoted for creating a “hostile” and “unprofessional” environment for subordinates and for making derogatory comments to female detainees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the county. Boulton’s speech at the arbitration was protected by the First Amendment, but he did not show that the demotion and suspension resulted from a policy against criticism, rather than his other “extensive misconduct.” View "Boulton v. Swanson" on Justia Law

Howell, Michigan undertook to refurbish and landscape its streets and removed a tree planted in the curb strip by Shoemaker. Shoemaker claims that when he protested, city workers told him “that’s not your property, you have no say.” Later, Code Enforcement Officer Donahue twice left a door-hanger notice informing Shoemaker that his lawn was in violation of the Ordinance, and obtained compliance. A third time, Donahue left a door-hanger notice, and mailed Notice of Ordinance Violation, but returned to find that, although the lawn had been mowed, the grass on the curb strip remained in excess of the limitation. Donahue returned several times and spoke with Shoemaker’s daughter. Shoemaker contacted City Hall to complain about the interaction, which his daughter described as “nerve [w]racking.” Shoemaker insisted that he would not mow the curb strip because he had been told by city employees that the area was city property, not his. The city hired a contractor to mow Shoemaker’s curb strip twice and charged him $600. Shoemaker claimed procedural and substantive due process violations. The court granted him summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed with instructions to dismiss. No fundamental right is implicated by the Ordinance requirement and it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. View "Shoemaker v. City of Howell" on Justia Law

At a bar, Gradisher had three or four beers and a shot of whiskey. Gradisher noticed the outline of a gun in the pocket of a man sitting to his left. Gradisher made a comment, causing a heated exchange. Gradisher went home and drank more beer. Gradisher then called 911 from his cell phone to report the man with the gun. On the first call, he refused to give his name and hung up. The operator called back. Gradisher and the operator got into a heated exchange, causing the operator to hang up, which prompted Gradisher to call 911 twice more, using obscenities. Akron officers went to his residence. Gradisher locked his door. They feared that someone might need help, broke down the door, entered, and found Gradisher under a sheet in his basement. An officer used a taser because Gradisher allegedly resisted arrest. Gradisher was found guilty of improperly using the 911 system. He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force, warrantless entry, malicious prosecution, and common-law torts. The district court rejected all claims. Finding genuine disputes of material facts related to excessive force in tasing Gradisher, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment on those and state-law causes of action for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross neglect, but otherwise affirmed. View "Gradisher v. City of Akron" on Justia Law

At a bar, Gradisher had three or four beers and a shot of whiskey. Gradisher noticed the outline of a gun in the pocket of a man sitting to his left. Gradisher made a comment, causing a heated exchange. Gradisher went home and drank more beer. Gradisher then called 911 from his cell phone to report the man with the gun. On the first call, he refused to give his name and hung up. The operator called back. Gradisher and the operator got into a heated exchange, causing the operator to hang up, which prompted Gradisher to call 911 twice more, using obscenities. Akron officers went to his residence. Gradisher locked his door. They feared that someone might need help, broke down the door, entered, and found Gradisher under a sheet in his basement. An officer used a taser because Gradisher allegedly resisted arrest. Gradisher was found guilty of improperly using the 911 system. He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for excessive force, warrantless entry, malicious prosecution, and common-law torts. The district court rejected all claims. Finding genuine disputes of material facts related to excessive force in tasing Gradisher, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment on those and state-law causes of action for assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross neglect, but otherwise affirmed. View "Gradisher v. City of Akron" on Justia Law

In 1985, a Tennessee state jury convicted Wright of two counts of pre-meditated murder in the first degree. Wright was sentenced to life imprisonment for one and sentenced to death for the other. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed Wright’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Three sets of unsuccessful state post-conviction proceedings followed. In 1999, Wright sought federal habeas relief with appointed counsel. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial. In 2013, Wright moved from judgment under Rule 60(b), asserting that Martinez, a 2012 Supreme Court decision, changed the law of procedural default such that, if his case were reopened, the court could reach the merits of claims previously dismissed as procedurally defaulted. The court closed the action without prejudice until the Supreme Court’s 2013 issuance of Trevino, and later denied Wright’s renewed Rule motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available only in “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances,” and Wright did not demonstrate such circumstances. Neither Martinez nor Trevino sufficiently changed the balance of the factors for consideration under Rule 60(b)(6) to warrant relief. Those decisions were “not a change in the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, but rather an adjustment of an equitable ruling by the Supreme Court as to when federal statutory relief is available.” View "Wright v. Warden, Riverbend Maximum Sec. Inst." on Justia Law

Yazdian is a first-generation Iranian American and nonpracticing Muslim, who worked as a territory manager for ConMed for five years. During his tenure at ConMed, Yazdian received awards, promotions, and praise, but had interpersonal problems with his manager, Sweatt. In 2010, Yazdian complained that Sweatt was creating a hostile work environment and discriminating against him; within six weeks, ConMed terminated Yazdian. Yazdian filed suit, alleging that ConMed terminated him in retaliation for opposing an unlawful employment practice and because of his national origin and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The district court granted summary judgment for ConMed. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to the retaliation claim. Yazdian produced enough evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that he made multiple complaints about a hostile work environment before he knew that his job was in jeopardy. If ConMed wants to argue that Yazdian wrongfully complained about discrimination to save his job, it may make that argument to the jury. The court affirmed as to the discrimination claim, stating that no reasonable jury could find that ConMed terminated Yazdian because of his national origin or religion. View "Yazdian v. ConMed Endoscopic Tech., Inc." on Justia Law