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

In 1996 (Free Press I), the Sixth Circuit held that the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requires government agencies to honor requests for the booking photographs of criminal defendants who have appeared in court during ongoing proceedings. Despite that holding, the U.S. Marshals Service denied the Free Press’s 2012 request for the booking photographs of Detroit-area police officers indicted on federal charges. The district court, bound by Free Press I, granted summary judgment to the newspaper in the ensuing lawsuit. A Sixth Circuit panel affirmed, while urging the full court to reconsider the merits of Free Press I. The court noted FOIA Exemption 7(C) which protects a non-trivial privacy interest in keeping “personal facts away from the public eye,” and that individuals do not forfeit their interest in maintaining control over information that has been made public in some form. Criminal defendants do not forfeit their interest in controlling private information while their cases remain pending. View "Detroit Free Press, Inc v. Dept. of Justice" on Justia Law

The American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan sent letters enclosed in sealed envelopes to 25 inmates at the Livingston County Jail that were marked “Legal Mail,” included the name and bar number of a Michigan attorney, and offered legal assistance regarding the Jail’s mail policy. The Jail’s written mail policy requires that all mail except “bona-fide legal mail” must be on 4x6 inch postcards; “legal mail,” on the other hand, may be sent in a sealed envelope and is generally not opened outside the inmate’s presence. The Jail did not deliver the ACLU’s letters to the inmates, nor did the Jail inform the ACLU or the inmates that the mail was not delivered. The ACLU filed suit, arguing that the Jail’s policies violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and obtained a preliminary injunction, requiring the Defendants to deliver the letters. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Jail’s argument that legal mail does not include mail from an attorney if the mail neither contains privileged content nor implicates an attorney-client relationship. View "Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Livingston Cnty." on Justia Law

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

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

In 2008, plaintiffs obtained a loan from Quicken and granted a mortgage on their property to Quicken’s nominee, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, “MERS.” The note and mortgage ultimately were conveyed to Bank of America. Plaintiffs defaulted. Bank of America foreclosed by advertisement under Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3201. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, “Freddie Mac,” purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs did not exercise their “equity of redemption” within the six-month statutory redemption period under Michigan law. Freddie Mac initiated eviction. In their counter-complaint, plaintiffs argued that the foreclosure was fraudulent and violated Michigan law because there was no chain of title evidencing ownership by Bank of America, which, therefore, did not have standing to foreclose; Freddie Mac was negligent for failing to evaluate plaintiffs’ loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program; the foreclosure and subsequent eviction were “wrongful” under Michigan law; and Freddie Mac violated their due process rights because its status as a government actor precluded foreclosure by advertisement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, reasoning that any negligence was not attributable to Freddie Mac and compliance with Michigan’s foreclosure-by-advertisement procedures satisfied the requirements of the Due Process Clause. View "Rush v. Freddie Mac" 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