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

Eric Smith was the majority owner, chairman, and CEO of Consulting Services Support Corporation (CSSC), which wholly owned CSSC Brokerage Services, Inc. (CSSC-BD), a registered FINRA broker-dealer. Although CSSC-BD was registered, Smith did not personally register with FINRA, claiming an exemption so long as he was not involved in managing the securities business. However, between 2010 and 2015, Smith actively managed CSSC-BD, including overseeing debt offerings, preparing offering documents with false statements, and soliciting investments totaling $130,000 from four investors. A FINRA examination and investor complaints uncovered these activities.Following an investigation, FINRA’s Department of Enforcement filed a complaint against Smith for violations of federal securities laws and FINRA rules. After a disciplinary proceeding, FINRA found against Smith and imposed sanctions, including $130,000 in restitution and a bar from associating with any FINRA member. Smith appealed to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which affirmed FINRA’s findings and sanctions. Smith then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing that FINRA lacked jurisdiction over him and that the proceedings violated his rights under Article III and the Seventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that FINRA had statutory authority to discipline Smith because, despite not registering, he controlled a FINRA member firm and was therefore a “person associated with a member” under the relevant statute. The court found Smith’s constitutional claims barred because he failed to raise them before the SEC as required by statute, and none of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement applied. The petition for review was denied. View "Smith v. Securities and Exchange Commission" on Justia Law

Several women incarcerated at a Michigan prison developed painful, persistent rashes between 2016 and 2019. Their complaints were largely ignored by prison staff, and medical providers initially misdiagnosed the condition, ruling out scabies, a highly contagious skin infestation. The prison’s contracted health care provider, Corizon Health, and its infectious disease coordinator were tasked with managing infectious diseases but failed to control the outbreak. Only after an outside dermatologist diagnosed scabies did prison officials begin widespread treatment and quarantine measures, though these efforts were not immediately effective. Four inmates who suffered from these conditions filed suit, seeking damages and injunctive relief against both the medical providers and high-level prison officials who had not directly treated them.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied motions for judgment on the pleadings by the Michigan Department of Corrections and Wayne State Officials. The district court held that the inmates had plausibly alleged that all defendants, including non-treating prison officials, committed clearly established Eighth Amendment violations and were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the gross negligence claims could proceed under Michigan law, as the complaint adequately alleged that the officials proximately caused the harms.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that, under existing precedent, non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers did not clearly constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. The court reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the inmates’ federal damages claims against these officials, finding no clearly established law requiring them to override medical judgments. However, the court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, concluding that proximate cause under Michigan law could not be resolved at the pleading stage. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "BLC Lexington SNF, LLC v. Townsend" on Justia Law

Four women incarcerated at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility in Michigan suffered from persistent, painful rashes between 2016 and 2019. Despite repeated complaints, medical staff—contracted through Corizon Health—failed to diagnose scabies, instead providing ineffective treatments and attributing the condition to environmental factors like improper laundering. It was only after an outside dermatologist intervened that scabies was correctly identified, prompting prison-wide treatment efforts. However, these efforts were delayed and, in some cases, inadequate, resulting in prolonged suffering for the affected inmates.After their experiences, the four women filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against multiple defendants, including high-level Michigan Department of Corrections officials and Wayne State University medical officers, alleging Eighth Amendment violations and state-law negligence. The district court found that the women’s complaint plausibly alleged “clearly established” Eighth Amendment violations by all defendants and denied the officials’ request for qualified immunity. The court also rejected a claim of state-law immunity, finding that the officials could be the proximate cause of the inmates’ injuries under Michigan law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denials. The Sixth Circuit held that existing precedent did not “clearly establish” that the non-treating prison officials’ reliance on contracted medical providers was so unreasonable as to violate the Eighth Amendment. Thus, it reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the federal damages claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of state-law immunity, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded proximate cause under Michigan law. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Machelle Pearson v. MDOC" on Justia Law

Daniel and Shatina Grady were arrested by police during a late-night shooting investigation outside a Michigan residence owned by their daughter. The Gradys lived nearby and approached the scene, filming officers and questioning their authority as they crossed into a perimeter that officers had established around the house suspected to contain the shooter. Despite receiving repeated commands to step back, the Gradys refused and continued to challenge the officers verbally. After warnings, the officers arrested them for interfering with the investigation, which led to a physical struggle.The Gradys were prosecuted in Michigan state court for assaulting, resisting, or obstructing the officers and damaging a police cruiser but were acquitted by a jury. While those charges were pending, the Gradys filed a civil suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, raising several claims, including First Amendment retaliation. The district court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the Gradys for failing to comply with lawful orders but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed under the exception recognized in Nieves v. Bartlett. The district court concluded that the Gradys presented evidence that other bystanders, who had not criticized the police and were not arrested, were similarly situated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers. The appellate court held that the other bystanders cited by the Gradys were not similarly situated because they did not enter the established perimeter or defy police orders. The court further found that the Gradys did not provide other objective evidence to satisfy the Nieves exception. As a result, the presence of probable cause defeated the Gradys’ First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Grady v. Cratsenburg" on Justia Law

A defendant with a prior felony conviction was found with a firearm while on supervised release, in violation of federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. The conduct leading to the indictment included absconding from supervision and being discovered with a gun, which also violated the terms of his supervised release. He moved to dismiss the federal indictment, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to him, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions concerning the Second Amendment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted the motion to dismiss, finding the relevant federal statute unconstitutional as applied to the defendant. The district court placed the burden on the government to justify the restriction, considered only the defendant's felony convictions (not his entire criminal record), and did not account for his supervised release status. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.While the appeal was pending, the Sixth Circuit issued new precedent clarifying the proper standard for reviewing Second Amendment challenges. This precedent shifted the burden to the defendant to show he is not dangerous and required courts to consider the full criminal history and supervised release status. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court had not applied the correct legal standard and that the existing record was insufficient for an individualized dangerousness determination. The appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss, instructing the district court to apply the correct legal standard consistent with current circuit precedent and to provide the defendant an opportunity to demonstrate he is not dangerous. View "United States v. Hostettler" on Justia Law

An agent employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervised participants in an Alternatives-to-Detention program, which allowed him significant discretion over their conditions, such as monitoring protocols and the handling of their passports. The agent engaged in sexual relations with multiple women under his supervision, violating agency policy. After one participant reported his behavior, an investigation revealed further evidence of misconduct, including deleted photos and communications. The agent attempted to impede the investigation by providing lenient supervision to a participant in exchange for her silence. One supervisee accused the agent of sexual assault, testifying to repeated coerced encounters.A jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio convicted the agent on several counts, including depriving a person of constitutional rights under color of law, obstructing a sex-trafficking investigation, witness tampering, and destruction of records. The district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison. During trial, the court excused an ill juror during deliberations, which the defendant challenged as an abuse of discretion. He also argued that multiple counts were improperly multiplicitous, raising double jeopardy concerns, and challenged several sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excusing the juror due to medical necessity. The appellate court found no plain error regarding multiplicity, as each contested count required proof of distinct elements or conduct. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancements, finding no error in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement to pre-investigation conduct under the amended Sentencing Guidelines, no impermissible double counting, and no error regarding the sentencing guidelines in relation to statutory maximums. The requirement that the defendant register as a sex offender was also affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in all respects. View "United States v. Golobic" on Justia Law

Two physicians who operated a pain management clinic and laboratory were indicted on multiple federal charges, including conspiracy to unlawfully distribute controlled substances, health care fraud, and making false statements relating to health care matters. In exchange for the government dropping the majority of charges, both defendants pled guilty to a single count of making false statements about health care matters. The plea agreements included stipulations that they submitted nearly 3,000 claims to government health benefit programs for unnecessary drug screens, receiving over $166,000 in payments, and contained waivers of their right to appeal the conviction or sentence unless the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio sentenced each defendant to five years of probation, ordered restitution of the full amount defrauded to be paid jointly and severally, and imposed a fine of $125,000 on each. At sentencing, the defendants objected to the fines as procedurally improper, unsupported by the record, and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The district court rejected these arguments.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the appellate waivers in the plea agreements barred the defendants’ challenges. The court held that the waivers precluded their arguments regarding procedural and substantive unreasonableness of the fines. Regarding the Eighth Amendment claim, the court concluded that, even if not barred, the argument failed because the fines were not grossly disproportional to the stipulated offense conduct, which included the full fraudulent scheme and resulting harm. The court found the fines were well below the statutory maximum and appropriate given the seriousness and scope of the offense. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of the fines. View "United States v. Mukhdomi" on Justia Law

The case centers on a series of lawsuits initiated by an individual against the City of Athens, Tennessee, its officials, and employees, stemming from events related to the City’s annual fireworks show. In 2022, due to COVID-19 precautions, attendance at the show was restricted to City employees and their families. The plaintiff, objecting to the exclusion of the general public, attended the event in protest and began filming, which led to confrontations with City employees and ultimately police involvement. Subsequent disputes, including statements made by City officials regarding settlement negotiations and the cancellation of future fireworks shows, prompted the plaintiff to file multiple lawsuits alleging defamation and First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee reviewed the plaintiff’s claims in several cases. It granted summary judgment or dismissed the actions for failure to state a claim, rejected motions to recuse the assigned judges, and, in each case, awarded sanctions and attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The plaintiff and his attorney appealed the sanctions and recusal orders, but not the merits of the underlying claims, which had already been dismissed or affirmed in previous appeals or were unreviewable due to procedural defects. Prior appellate proceedings, including one in which the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, precluded reconsideration of the underlying merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed only the sanctions and recusal orders. Applying abuse of discretion and de novo review where appropriate, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied recusal and correctly imposed sanctions. The appellate court found the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, often barred by immunity or privilege, and part of a pattern of harassing litigation. The court affirmed the district court’s awards of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113, as well as the denial of the recusal motions. View "Whiting v. City of Athens" on Justia Law

Police responded to a domestic violence report in which a woman’s daughter informed emergency responders that her mother’s boyfriend had assaulted her mother and was armed with a gun. Officers were told the suspect’s name, his car model, and that he was armed. Upon arrival, the officers spoke with both the victim and her daughter, who confirmed the assault and that the suspect had threatened the victim with a gun, describing it as “small.” The suspect was seen leaving the apartment building, and despite a canine search and a pat-down after his detention near his orange Dodge, neither he nor the gun was initially located. A search of the car, using the suspect’s keys, revealed a pistol under the front passenger seat.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun found in the vehicle, arguing that the warrantless search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied the motion, holding that officers had probable cause to believe evidence of a crime—a gun used in a reported assault—would be found in the defendant’s vehicle based on the information provided by witnesses and police observations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered whether officers had probable cause for the search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The court held that the officers had a “fair probability” to believe the gun would be in the car, given the eyewitness reports, the absence of the gun on the suspect or in the immediate area, and the fact that the suspect was found in the vehicle. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, concluding the search was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Woods" on Justia Law

Four individuals alleged that they owned funds subject to Ohio’s unclaimed property regime and that their funds were set to escheat, or transfer, to the state as of January 1, 2026, due to recent amendments to Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Act. The Act requires holders of unclaimed funds to remit those funds to the state after a period of dormancy, with additional amendments providing that funds held for ten years or more would escheat to the state, although owners would still have ten additional years to claim an equivalent amount, with interest, less expenses.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against state officials responsible for implementing the Act. They argued that the statutory regime violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and various Ohio laws. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the escheatment of their funds, claiming they received insufficient notice and would suffer irreparable harm. The district court denied the request, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm, particularly since they could still claim the funds from the state after escheatment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial for abuse of discretion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm because they retained a statutory avenue to recover their funds with interest after escheatment and could seek a monetary judgment if their constitutional claims succeeded. The court further determined that the plaintiffs either had actual notice of their funds or failed to identify specific property at risk, so no likelihood of irreparable harm was shown. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. View "Bleick v. Maxfield" on Justia Law