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

After serving several stints in prison, Latimer moved into his girlfriend’s Akron home. When Ohio parole officers knocked on the door, Latimer, apparently freshly awakened greeted the officers and allowed them to enter. The officers noticed a 9-millimeter pistol on a loveseat, just steps away. The officers detained Latimer and requested assistance to search the entire home. In Latimer’s bedroom, officers discovered large sums of cash, including a six-inch stack of dollar bills. Officers found three cell phones, dialed Latimer’s known phone number, causing one of the phones to ring. The phone contained text messages referencing Latimer’s “strap,” an indication that Latimer owned and was using a firearm. Information extracted from the phones suggested that all three belonged to Latimer and revealed that Latimer was selling powder cocaine out of the home. In an adjacent bedroom, officers found two additional firearms. In the kitchen, officers discovered numerous baggies of cocaine and a digital scale, a picture of which was saved on one of the seized phones, and more cash.Latimer was convicted under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and for being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The district court sentenced Latimer to 175 months plus 24 months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively, for supervised-release violations. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government failed to show that Latimer possessed the contraband found at his residence. View "United States v. Latimer" on Justia Law

In 1989, Middlebrooks of felony murder and aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to death. His conviction and death sentence were upheld on direct and collateral review. When Middlebrooks was sentenced to death, electrocution was Tennessee’s only method of execution. In 2000, Tennessee adopted lethal injection as the default method of execution. Under current law, electrocution is an option for execution only if an inmate sentenced to death before 1999 chooses execution by electrocution; lethal injection is declared unconstitutional; or the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) certifies that a necessary lethal-injection ingredient is unavailable. Middlebrooks will not choose execution by electrocution. In 2018, TDOC adopted a three-drug protocol of midazolam, vecuronium bromide, and potassium chloride as an alternative to pentobarbital.Middlebrooks and other death row challenged the constitutionality of the three-drug protocol. Tennessee then eliminated the pentobarbital protocol The state court dismissed their complaint. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that pentobarbital was available as an alternative means of execution, although other states used pentobarbital in executions.The district court dismissed Middlebrooks’ 42 U.S.C. suit, citing res judicata. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. Middlebrooks' facial challenge plausibly alleged new facts that allow a reasonable inference that pentobarbital is available to Tennessee for use in executions. Middlebrooks’s as-applied claim does not rest on any newly developed individual condition that would render impermissible the application of res judicata principles. View "Middlebrooks v. Parker" on Justia Law

Lakeside, a Michigan corporation, fabricates stone countertops in Michigan. Cambria a Minnesota LLC, is a nationwide manufacturer of countertop products. Lakeside buys “solid surface products” from manufacturers like Cambria. In 2011, the two companies executed a Business Partner Agreement (BPA) including a Credit Agreement, a Security Agreement, Order Terms and Conditions, Lifetime Limited Warranty, and a Business Operating Requirements Manual Acknowledgment Form. The BPA’s choice-of-law provision and forum-selection clause, in a single paragraph, state: This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Any proceeding involving this Agreement and/or any claims or disputes relating to the agreements and transactions between the parties shall be in the ... State of Minnesota. Pursuant to the BPA, Lakeside opened a fabrication facility in 2017. Discussions about Lakeside becoming Cambria’s sole Michigan fabricator led to Lakeside terminating the relationship.Lakeside filed suit in the Western District of Michigan, alleging breach of contract, violations of the Michigan Franchise Investment Law (MFIL), UCC violations, and promissory estoppel. The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the suit, finding the forum-selection clause unenforceable. MFIL’s prohibition on forum-selection clauses is a strong Michigan public policy and enforcing the forum-selection clause here would clearly contravene that policy. The MFIL claim is not Lakeside’s only claim, and the choice-of-law provision may be applied, as appropriate, to claims within its scope. View "Lakeside Surfaces, Inc. v. Cambria Co., LLC" on Justia Law

Owsley. a nurse for Care Connection, a company providing home healthcare to Medicare patients, alleged that she observed, firsthand, documents showing that her employer had used fraudulent data from Fazzi to submit inflated claims for payment to the federal and Indiana state governments. She sued both companies under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), (G), and an Indiana statute.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Owsley’s complaint provided few details that would allow the defendants to identify any specific claims—of the hundreds or likely thousands they presumably submitted—that she thinks were fraudulent, and did not meet the requirements of Civil Rule 9(b). While Owsley’s allegations describe, in detail, a fraudulent scheme: Fazzi fraudulently upcoded patient data, which Care then used to submit inflated requests for anticipated Medicare payments, that information does not amount to an allegation of “particular identified claims” submitted pursuant to the fraudulent scheme. View "Owsley v. Fazzi Associates., Inc." on Justia Law

ZF appealed an order granting limited discovery to Luxshare under 28 U.S.C. 1782. Luxshare plans to use the discovery in the parties’ international arbitration. ZF sought a stay pending appeal, citing the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Servotronics (2021), and its own pending motion before the Supreme Court to grant an immediate appeal on the same issues raised in Servotronics.The Sixth Circuit first held that there was an appealable order; the district court’s decision whether to order discovery conclusively resolves the subject matter of the underlying proceeding. Orders under section 1782, including on motions to quash subpoenas, are final, appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The court then denied a stay after considering the likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of irreparable injury absent a stay, whether issuance of the stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. The Supreme Court has since dismissed Servotronics and ZF failed to show that the minimal and nonconfidential discovery would constitute irreparable harm. View "Luxshare, Ltd. v. ZF Automotive US, Inc." on Justia Law

Canton’s 2006 Tree Ordinance prohibits the unpermitted removal, damage, or destruction of trees of specified sizes, with exceptions for agricultural operations, commercial nurseries, tree farms, and occupied lots smaller than two acres. If Canton issues a permit, the owner must replace removed trees on its own or someone else’s property or pay into Canton’s tree fund. For every landmark tree removed, an owner must replant three trees or pay $450. For every non-landmark tree removed as part of larger-scale tree removal, an owner must replant one tree or pay $300.In 2016, Canton approved the division of F.P.'s undeveloped property, noting the permitting requirement. The parcels were bisected by a county drainage ditch that was clogged with fallen trees and debris. The county refused to clear the ditch. F.P. contracted for the removal of the trees and debris and clearing other trees without a permit. Canton determined that F.P. had removed 14 landmark trees and 145 non-landmark trees. F.P. was required to either replant 187 trees or pay $47,898. F.P. filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983.The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for F.P. on its as-applied Fifth Amendment claim; although the ordinance, as applied to F.P., was not unconstitutional as a per se physical taking, it was unconstitutional as a regulatory taking and as an unconstitutional condition. Canton has not made the necessary individualized determination; the ordinance fails the “rough proportionality” required by Supreme Court precedent. View "F.P. Development, LLC. v. Charter Township of Canton" on Justia Law

A Xenia Police dispatcher contacted officer Reed about a double-parked vehicle with the person in the backseat allegedly “shooting up.” Reed observed a vehicle straddling the line between a standard parking spot and a handicap-only space; it was not displaying a handicap placard or license plate and was illegally parked. Prigmore opened the rear passenger door of the vehicle. Reed saw what appeared to be a handgun in the pocket of the door; he activated his body camera, unholstered his firearm, and secured the gun. With Prigmore out of the vehicle, Reed observed another firearm (a BB gun) on the seat where Prigmore had been sitting.Days later, federal agents arrested Prigmore for drug trafficking. The agents did not interview or Mirandize Prigmore immediately because he appeared to be “under the influence.” When he arrived at booking, Prigmore appeared coherent and stated—unprompted—“that gun was mine.” A warranted search of Prigmore’s residence uncovered a box of ammunition. Charged with possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Prigmore had a “volatile relationship” with his attorneys, resulting in two competency hearings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed his conviction and 120-month sentence, rejecting arguments that the district court erred in finding him competent to stand trial, should have granted his motions to suppress, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Prigmore" on Justia Law

Before 2013, the Michigan Department of Corrections provided kosher meals with meat and dairy to Jewish prisoners and allowed charitable Jewish organizations to bring in traditional religious foods for Jewish holidays. In 2013, MDOC implemented a universal vegan meal for all prisoners who qualify for a religious diet and stopped allowing Jewish organizations to send food. Prisoners claiming that their religious convictions require them to eat a meal with kosher meat and one with dairy on the Jewish Sabbath and four Jewish holidays brought a class action on behalf of all Jewish MDOC prisoners under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a), arguing that the policy substantially burdens their sincere religious beliefs.The Sixth Circuit affirmed a judgment in the prisoners’ favor. Because MDOC’s policy completely bars the asserted practice here—eating meat and dairy at mealtime—the prisoners’ failure to buy meat and dairy products at the commissary does not undermine the sincerity of their belief. Even if the prisoners spent every penny on beef sticks and dry milk, prison policy would still bar their religious exercise of eating those items as part of their meals. There was evidence suggesting that these prisoners do in fact sincerely believe that cheesecake is required on Shavuot. View "Ackerman v. Washington" on Justia Law

In 2009, Lemons pleaded guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment, based on the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which requires the imposition of a 180-month mandatory minimum sentence if the defendant has “at least three previous convictions for certain ‘violent’ or drug-related felonies.” The district court concluded that Lemons' three Tennessee convictions for aggravated burglary qualified as ACCA predicate offenses. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and later ordered the reinstatement of that sentence after the district court granted Lemons 28 U.S.C. 2255 relief.After serving approximately seven years of his sentence, Lemons sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), citing the risk presented by COVID-19 given his medical condition (hypothyroidism), his lengthy sentence, and his progress towards rehabilitation. The district court denied the motion, finding that Lemons did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction, and declining to consider 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)’s factors. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting Lemons’ access to the COVID-19 vaccine. Rehabilitation alone is not a basis for relief and Lemons’ mandatory minimum sentence is not a post-sentencing factual development that can serve as an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a sentence. View "United States v. Lemons" on Justia Law

McKeon has sold “MACK’S” earplugs to retail consumers since the 1960s. In the 1980s, Honeywell's predecessor began marketing and selling MAX-brand earplugs to distributors. The brand names are phonetically identical. In 1995, McKeon sued. The parties entered a settlement agreement that the district court approved by consent decree. To prevent customer confusion, Honeywell agreed not to sell its MAX-brand earplugs into the “Retail Market” but could continue to sell its earplugs in “the Industrial Safety Market and elsewhere." The agreement and the consent decree never contemplated the internet. In 2017, McKeon complained about sales of MAX-brand earplugs on Amazon and other retail websites.The district court ruled in favor of McKeon. The Sixth Circuit affirmed and remanded. Laches is available to Honeywell as an affirmative defense but does not apply to these facts. Parties subject to consent decrees cannot scale their prohibited conduct over time, using minor undetected violations to justify later larger infringements. Honeywell did not establish that McKeon should have discovered the breaching conduct before Honeywell drastically increased online sales. McKeon’s interpretation of the consent decree is the better reading. Concluding that Amazon is a “retail establishment” makes sense given the parties’ intent. View "McKeon Products, Inc. v. Howard S. Leight & Associates, Inc." on Justia Law