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

Butler, age 25, arrived at Hopkins County Detention Center to serve a misdemeanor sentence. A tower operator saw Butler put something in his mouth and swallow, and relayed her observation to deputies, who started booking procedures. Butler vomited twice. Deputies noticed that Butler appeared to be under the influence and was sweating profusely. While answering questions, his demeanor deteriorated and he had difficulty standing. Butler stated that he had an MRSA infection, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and osteoporosis. He listed several prescribed medications and denied drug or alcohol addiction. The deputies did not want to admit Butler because of his condition. A licensed practical nurse examined Butler and instructed the deputies to admit Butler. As an LPN, she lacked the credentials to diagnose any illness, but was aware that untreated MRSA infection could lead to sepsis and death. Although staff placed Butler on suicide watch, there is no evidence that Butler was evaluated for suicidal ideation, nor any evidence that Butler received blood pressure medication while confined or that the nurses questioned why his blood pressure fell, absent medication. Butler died three days later from MRSA complications. The court rejected claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983b on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, noting genuine issues of material fact and that the facility's medical contractor is not entitled to governmental immunity on the state-law claim. View "Shadrick v. Hopkins Cnty." on Justia Law

In 1987, Abdur’Rahman was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit first-degree murder, and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. Abdur’Rahman unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and failure to turn over exculpatory evidence. Abdur’Rahman sought 28 U.S.C. 2254 relief. The Sixth Circuit vacated an order of habeas relief, concluding that Abdur’Rahman was not prejudiced by counsel’s performance. Abdur’Rahman filed a Rule 60(b) motion. The Sixth Circuit held that the prosecution did not violate Brady with respect to the codefendant’s pretrial statements and that trial counsel interviewed the police officer about, and could have obtained a separate report, concerning an incident following arrest. A cumulative error claim was defaulted as not raised in state court. In 2013, Abdur’Rahman sought to reopen claims in light of the Supreme Court holding, Martinez v. Ryan (2012). Abdur’Rahman specified: cumulative error affecting sentencing arising from prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance and an improper jury instruction regarding accomplice testimony and counsel’s failure to challenge the instruction. After the district court denied relief and issued its certificate of applicability, Abdur’Rahman moved for remand in light of intervening Sixth Circuit decisions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and denied remand.As a change in decisional law, Marinez did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. None of the claims involve substantial claims of ineffective assistance that were procedurally defaulted by inadequate post-conviction counsel. View "Abdur'Rahman v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Dearborn hosted Arab International Festival, 1995-2012, attracting 250,000 people with entertainment and food. The 2012 Festival had 85 vendors and information tables, including several affiliated with Christian and other groups. Bible Believers attended in 2011, bearing “Christian signs, banners, and t-shirts” that provoked confrontations. Their attorney asserted that the sheriff sided with “violent Muslims” and demanded protection. Counsel responded that the sheriff “owes a duty to the public as a whole and … cannot protect everyone from the foreseeable consequences that come from speech that is ... perhaps intended to elicit a potentially negative reaction.” The sheriff claims to have allocated more personnel to the Festival than to “the World Series or the President.” In 2012, Believers displayed messages including: “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder,” a severed pig’s head on a stick, and references to a “pedophile” prophet. The crowd threw debris, and shoved a Believer to the ground. Officers detained debris-throwers and attempted crowd control. Believers continued to preach until officers escorted the Believers out. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the county defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but later reversed, reasoning that “Speech is often provocative,” and the defendants impermissibly cut off the Believers’ protected speech, placed an undue burden on their exercise of religion, and treated them disparately from other speakers at the Festival, solely on the basis of the views that they espoused. View "Bible Believers v. Wayne County" on Justia Law

Coleman was convicted of armed robbery, as a felon-in-possession of a firearm, and of possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony and was sentenced to 22-32 years in prison. Coleman filed an unsuccessful pro se motion for a new trial. His direct appeal was unsuccessful. Coleman then moved for relief from judgment, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his appellate attorney failed to argue that he was allowed to proceed without counsel on his motion for a new trial. The state trial judge denied Coleman’s motion, noting that he had warned Coleman against proceeding without counsel, albeit at the end of the hearing rather than the outset. The Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. The district court denied his federal habeas petition on the merits. The Sixth Circuit granted review, then vacated the COA as improvidently granted, The Supreme Court has never held that a hearing on a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, so there is no “clearly established Federal law” creating a right to counsel at a hearing on a motion for a new trial and no basis on which Coleman’s appellate attorney could have argued before the Michigan Court of Appeals that a violation of the Sixth Amendment had occurred. View "Coleman v. Bergh" on Justia Law

Sunrise operates group homes, places children in foster care, and provides related services for the State of Kentucky, which provides 65% of Sunrise’s revenue. Sunrise describes its mission as “to extend the grace and hope of our loving God to the young people in our care by meeting their physical, emotional and spiritual needs.” Some young people alleged that Sunrise pressured them to become practicing Christians. In 2000, plaintiffs sued, alleging that Kentucky had violated the Establishment Clause by paying Sunrise for services provided to children in state custody. In 2013, the plaintiffs and Kentucky—but not Sunrise—agreed to a settlement that singled out Sunrise for monitoring by the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Sunrise objected, arguing that it was entitled to a merits adjudication. Over Sunrise’s objection, the district court dismissed the Establishment Clause claim, incorporated the settlement into its dismissal order, and retained jurisdiction to enforce that order. The court held that its dismissal was not a consent decree, notwithstanding its incorporation of the settlement agreement, so that Sunrise could not object to the entry. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for consideration of whether the settlement agreement is fair to Sunrise. View "Pedreira v. Sunrise Children's Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Detroit police received complaints about drug activity at a residence and used a confidential informant to make a controlled buy. They observed as the CI went to the front door, but were unable to see the person with whom the CI interacted. The CI returned to the vehicle with marijuana. The CI stated that he purchased the marijuana from a black male, called Ray, and gave a description. Police obtained a search warrant. Upon arrival at the home, officers encountered a boy on the sidewalk, who stated that Ray, his father, was inside the home. No one responded. The officers claim they found the door unlocked. They entered, announced themselves, and found Ray and a woman sleeping in an upstairs bedroom, where they found 31 individual bags of marijuana, shotgun shells, and an unloaded shotgun. A loaded rifle was found in a second bedroom. On the first floor, officers found loose marijuana, 49 small bags of crack cocaine, and a loaded semiautomatic handgun. Before being read his Miranda rights, Ray took responsibility for the illegal items; he claims that he did not want his son to see the child’s mother taken out in handcuffs and thought the conversation was off the record. Ray was convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. 841, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for a hearing on whether the court erred in admitting Ray’s alleged confession. View "United States v. Ray" on Justia Law

During a 1994 attack on his neighbors, Morris shot and killed the husband, beat and stabbed a teen-aged cousin and raped the wife, who survived. The gun was found underneath Morris’s dresser drawer. After waiving his constitutional rights, Morris gave a statement that on the day of the offense he had purchased and smoked $250 worth of cocaine, had an argument with the husband, waited with his gun, entered the house, shot husband, stabbed cousin, and raped wife. The defense focused on Morris’s history as a good student and employee and his deterioration due to drug use. The jury imposed a death sentence for the cousin’s murder and a sentence life without parole for the husband’s murder. The court imposed a consecutive 25-year sentence for the aggravated rape conviction. After exhausting state remedies, Morris sought federal habeas relief. The district court granted the petition in part, vacating his death sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of Morris’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase, but vacated the grant of relief on Morris’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The conclusion of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals that counsel’s performance was not deficient was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law. View "Morris v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

Colleen O’Toole is currently a judge and announced her intention to run for election in 2016 to one of the three contested seats on the Supreme Court of Ohio. O’Toole and her judicial campaign committee challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, including Rule 4.4(E) and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction only with respect to Rule 4.4(E) which states that: The campaign committee of a judicial candidate may begin soliciting and receiving contributions no earlier than one hundred twenty days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of the year in which the general election is held. If the general election is held in 2012 or any fourth year thereafter, the campaign committee of a judicial candidate may begin soliciting and receiving contributions no earlier than one hundred twenty days before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of the year in which the general election is held. The district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the campaign committee failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits or likelihood of irreparable harm. View "O'Toole v. O'Connor" on Justia Law

Approximately 60 Grand Traverse County officers converged on Carlson’s house after calls from family members indicated that Carlson, who was armed, was alone in his house, threatening suicide. Hours after their last contact with Carlson, officers broke windows and flooded the house with tear gas, which did not drive Carlson out as intended. Carlson finally reacted, hours later, by shouting and threatening officers in his yard. A sniper, who believed Carlson was preparing to shoot an officer, shot through a window, killing Carlson. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted summary judgment to the county and the officers in charge of the operation, who did not seek a warrant to attack Carlson’s house or seize him inside. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The evidence suggested that in the split second of their choosing and without a warrant, the team decided to end hours of tense, quiet waiting by taking the precise action that Carlson described as “the start of the war.” A jury could find the totality of the circumstances made this unreasonable, not just in hindsight, but from the perspective of any reasonable person responsible for rendering aid to an armed and obviously emotionally disturbed person.The court did not grant summary judgment to the sniper, but the Sixth Circuit affirmed a verdict in his favor. View "Carlson v. Fewins" on Justia Law

Cooperating witness, “DEA1,” provided information concerning Middleton’s heroin trafficking, including phone numbers DEA1 used to contact Middleton. DEA1 identified Middleton’s residence as the drug distribution point. DEA1 set up a controlled heroin purchase. Surveillance units noticed a Silverado parked at the residence. Middleton agreed to deliver the heroin, stating he would leave in “ten minutes” to meet DEA1. A Denali arrived at Middleton’s residence. Men left minutes later with a large, dark-colored object, which was placed in the Silverado. Both vehicles headed toward the meeting area. State police stopped the Silverado. The sole occupant was Woods, driving on a suspended license; he verbally consented to a search, which revealed a black tool case, containing a substance that field-tested as heroin. Troopers also stopped the Denali, driven by Middleton. Brown was a passenger, in possession of $4,813, cash. Officers recovered cell phones during an inventory search, including one DEA1 had used to contact Middleton. DEA obtained a warrant to search Brown’s Detroit residence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Brown’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction. The court noted concern that the warrant affidavit supplied a tenuous nexus between drug trafficking and Brown’s residence, but concluded that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause. The court properly admitted a “drug ledger” into evidence and excluded evidence concerning Brown’s Michigan medical marijuana license. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law