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

After a fire damaged her house, Lester filed a claim with Allstate. The company asked Lester and her husband to answer questions under oath. Lester responded that they would submit to examinations only if Allstate first showed them its investigative files. Allstate refused to turn over the files, stating that doing so “could jeopardize the integrity” of its inquiry. Allstate eventually gave Lester 10 days to schedule an examination, warning that, if she did not submit to an examination, it would deny the claim. Lester never responded, but sued the company. The district court granted Allstate summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that the insurance policy requires Lester to “submit to examinations under oath” at Allstate’s request and that Tennessee law permits denial of a claim when the policyholder refuses to participate in an examination under oath. The company’s refusal to share its investigative files before examining her is reasonable and did not breach a duty of good faith. Tennessee presumes that failure to participate in an examination results in prejudice to the insurer, and makes it the policyholder’s burden to demonstrate that the company suffered no harm. Lester never introduced any evidence to rebut the presumption. View "Lester v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Howard has been involved with the criminal-justice system since he was 11 years old. In 2006, at age 21, he pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) as a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, his attorney objected to several Presentence Investigation Report assignments of criminal-history points for Howard’s juvenile offenses. The district court sustained two objections, leaving Howard in Criminal History Category V, with a guidelines-recommended range of 130 to 162 months of imprisonment. The court sentenced Howard to the statutory maximum of 120 months of imprisonment. Howard later filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255 alleging that his attorney’s representation was constitutionally deficient for failure to object to the PSR’s award of two criminal history points related to his juvenile stay at a school for adjudicated delinquents. The district court denied his petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Howard’s allegations of attorney misconduct and incompetence were troubling, and if proven true, might support a finding of constitutionally deficient performance, but in this case, the attorney’s representation did not run afoul of the Sixth Amendment’s basic protections. An objection would have been futile, and Howard did not explain how his sentence would be different but for the other misconduct he alleged. View "Howard v. United States" on Justia Law

King pled guilty to armed robbery and bank robbery while on parole for a prior felony offense. As part of the plea agreement, the state agreed that consecutive sentencing would not apply and the court imposed concurrent sentences for the armed robbery and bank robbery convictions. As required by Michigan law, the court imposed those sentences consecutive to King’s parole sentence. King sought to withdraw his plea, arguing only that the prosecutor impermissibly reneged on the plea deal by failing to abide by his promise of leniency. The state trial court found that the prosecutor never promised something that was not within his power: having the parole sentence run concurrently with the newly-imposed sentences. King then sought habeas relief. The federal district court denied the claim, finding the state court’s determination that there was no breach of King’s plea agreement was not objectively unreasonable. On appeal, King claimed that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered under the Supreme Court’s holding in Boykin v. Alabama. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that, with respect to this new claim, King failed to exhaust state remedies. View "King v. Berghuis" on Justia Law

PTM provided the services of a CEO to the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) to control daily operations, while ultimate management authority remained with SORTA’s Board of Trustees. PTM hired Plaintiff as SORTA’s Chief Operating Officer. Plaintiff, an African American woman, a graduate of West Point and University of Michigan Business School, had no prior industry experience. Two years later, PTM changed hands and Plaintiff became CEO on an at-will basis. Within months, PTM began questioning her allegiance to PTM. Plaintiff repeatedly declined to participate in PTM programs. Tensions escalated during negotiations for renewal of PTM’s management contract, which prohibited PTM employees from working for SORTA within a year of its expiration. Plaintiff’s PTM contract contained the same prohibition. PTM suspected that Plaintiff and SORTA were conspiring to have SORTA hire Plaintiff directly. The contract was extended and the one-year hiring prohibition was removed from the contracts. PTM executives continued to regard Plaintiff as a “prima donna” and exchanged several emails critical of Plaintiff. Following a dispute concerning unionization of SORTA workers, PTM fired Plaintiff, purportedly for lying about the dispute. The district court rejected Plaintiff’s discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding PTM’s investigation inadequate to establish that Plaintiff lied.View "Shazor v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt., Ltd." on Justia Law

Pauline and her doctors were aware of Pauline’s allergy to heparin, an anti-coagulant; she wore a medical bracelet listing her heparin allergy and her medical records noted the allergy. Her estate alleges that on several occasions, the hospital’s medical staff injected Pauline with heparin “in direct contradiction to her specific directive,” which proximately caused her death. The district court dismissed, for failure to comply with the notice and heightened pleading requirements of the Tennessee Medical Malpractice Act. The court concluded that under Tennessee law the injections were not “procedures” or “treatments” for the purposes of medical battery, but were only component parts of her treatment process, which did not require consent and could form the basis for medical malpractice but not medical battery. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged medical battery, which is not subject to the Act. View "Shuler v. Garrett" on Justia Law

Miller was convicted in Michigan of second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. The evidence included email and instant-message conversations between Miller and her lover, Cassaday, in which Miller lied to Cassaday that she was pregnant with his children but that her husband abused her, causing her to miscarry; convinced Cassaday that her husband was involved in organized crime and that her life was in danger; and plotted her husband’s murder. Cassaday told his brother Mike that he was leaving town and that, if he did not return, Mike should look for a briefcase under Cassaday’s bed. Bruce Miller was murdered on November 9, 1999. Miller promptly ended her relationship with Cassaday and started dating someone else. Cassaday committed suicide. Mike found the briefcase and notes, which he opened in the presence of an attorney. The case contained copies of the emails and IM conversations. Its contents were admitted into evidence with evidence linking the communications to Miller’s and Cassaday’s AOL accounts. Cassaday’s suicide note was also admitted. Miller claimed that admission of the note violated her clearly established Sixth Amendment right to confront her accuser and sought habeas corpus. Following a remand, after the Supreme Court vacated an earlier decision, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Michigan Court of Appeals decision upholding the note’s admission did not violate clearly established law. View "Miller v. Stovall" on Justia Law

Gerald and his adult children, Jeremy and Ashley, grew marijuana on Gerald’s farm. As a “patient” under Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), Gerald was permitted to grow no more than 12 marijuana plants for personal use. His children, both registered as MMMA “patients” and “caregivers” could grow up to 72 marijuana plants apiece. In 2011, officers executed search warrants at Gerald’s farm, confiscating more than 100 marijuana plants, drug paraphernalia, and firearms. Gerald and Jeremy were charged with conspiracy to manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and 846; manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants with the intent to distribute the drug, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); maintaining a drug premises, 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1); and possessing a firearm in the furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The government also charged Gerald as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). A jury convicted them on the drug-related counts, but acquitted them on the counts related to the firearms. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court erred in concluding that compliance with the MMMA was irrelevant to the warrant application and that the indictment did not allege a federal crime because the Duvals are registered MMMA “caregivers” and because Jeremy qualifies under the “practitioner exception” of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802(21). View "United States v. Duval" on Justia Law

The Miks sued the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), claiming that they were unlawfully evicted from their rental home after their landlord defaulted on her mortgage and the property was sold at a foreclosure sale. The district court dismissed, under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (12 U.S.C. 5220), which imposes certain requirements on successors in interest to foreclosed properties in order to protect tenants, but which does not provide a private right of action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, agreeing that the PTFA does not provide a private right of action. The PTFA does, however, preempt less protective state laws, and requires that successors in interest to foreclosed properties provide bona fide tenants with 90 days’ notice to vacate and to allow them to occupy the premises until the end of their lease term unless certain conditions are met. While tenants may not bring a federal cause of action for violations of the PTFA, they may use such violations to establish the elements of a state law cause of action. Under state law, the Miks stated a claim for wrongful eviction but did not state claims for denial of due process and outrageous infliction of emotional distress. View "Mik v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp" on Justia Law

Reed, who suffers from seizures as the result of a motorcycle accident, filed suit based on two incidents. In the first, inside Reed’s cell at the Franklin County Corrections Center, deputies were unable to handcuff Reed for transport to a hospital following a seizure, due to his resistance. They twice used a Taser to subdue him. The incident was captured on videotape. Later that day at the hospital emergency room, a deputy used a Taser on Reed after Reed lunged at the deputy. Reed argued that the deputies used excessive force and that the county failed to train the deputies on the proper use of Tasers, creating a policy and practice of abuse. Finding that “no rational fact finder could conclude that the defendant deputies acted with conscience-shocking malice or sadism” toward Reed during either incident, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that it would not put the onus on the deputies to assess the seriousness of Reed’s seizure in order to determine whether it warranted immediate medical treatment. The decision to use a Taser to subdue Reed to take him to the hospital “might have been unwise, but it was not unconstitutional.” View "Shreve v. Franklin Cnty." on Justia Law

Responding to a report of underage drinking in a home, officers found a group celebrating eighth grade graduation. Police asked the teens to step outside individually for breathalyzer testing. Seven tested positive for alcohol. Police arrested them and notified their parents. In the morning, a juvenile worker arrived at the police station, and, after speaking with a judge, indicated that the children were to be detained for a court appearance the next day. At the regional juvenile detention center, the minors underwent routine fingerprinting, mug shots, and metal-detection screening. During a hygiene inspection and health screening, they were required to disrobe completely for visual inspection to detect “injuries, physical abnormalities, scars and body markings, ectoparasites, and general physical condition.” A same-sex youth worker observed the juveniles for several minutes from a distance of one to two feet, recording findings for review by an R.N. The minors were required to shower with delousing shampoo. They were released the following day. The charges were dropped. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the juveniles, based on a “clearly established right for both adults and juveniles to be free from strip searches absent individualized suspicion” that negated a qualified immunity defense. The Sixth Circuit reversed, stating that no clearly established principle of constitutional law forbids a juvenile detention center from implementing a generally applicable, suspicionless strip-search policy upon intake into the facility.View "T. S. v. Doe" on Justia Law