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

The Sparkses own property subject to a homeowners’ association. When they fell behind on their assessments, the Association engaged Equity Experts to collect that debt. Equity Experts also sought to collect from the Sparkses the $270 fee it charges the Association for its collection services; the Sparkses contend that those attempts violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). That Act prohibits debt collectors from attempting to collect debts not “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law,” 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Equity Experts. The agreement at issue expressly authorizes the Association to collect its “costs.” The Declaration’s use of “costs” is best read in its ordinary sense to mean all “costs of collection,” and not just taxable “legal costs.” The Sparkses did not argue that Equity Experts’ fees were unreasonably high, nor did they provide substantial evidence of an understanding between Equity Experts and the Association that the Association would never actually have to pay the collection fees. View "Melvin Sparks v. EquityExperts.org, LLC" on Justia Law

Spurr is the stepmother of Nathaniel, a Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi (NHBP) tribal member in Fulton, Michigan. Nathaniel obtained an ex parte personal protection order (PPO) from the NHBP tribal court, alleging that Spurr engaged in a campaign of harassment against him that included unwanted visits to Nathaniel’s residence on the NHBP reservation and several hundred letters, emails, and phone calls. The tribal court, that same month, held a hearing and made the PPO “permanent” (lasting one year), broadly, prohibiting Spurr from contacting Nathaniel or “appearing within [his] sight.” The NHBP Supreme Court affirmed. Six months later, Nathaniel claimed that Spurr violated the PPO. After holding two hearings, the tribal court found Spurr in civil contempt and mandated that Spurr pay attorney’s fees incurred by Nathaniel for a hearing where Spurr failed to appear and $250 to NHBP for hearing costs. In lieu of the $250 payment, Spurr could choose to perform 25 hours of community service. Spurr sought a federal declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Spurr’s claims against the Band and the NHBP Supreme Court were barred by sovereign immunity; 18 U.S.C. 2265 established the tribal court’s jurisdiction. View "Spurr v. Pope" on Justia Law

Police received a report of a drunk driver, with the vehicle’s license plate number. The database reported the vehicle as stolen. The suspect’s name came back: Powell, who was allegedly “armed and dangerous.” Using the caller’s updates on the vehicle’s location, in minutes three deputies found it stopped on a dirt road with the driver standing outside. The deputies told the driver to get on the ground. He dropped to his knees and put his hands in the air. As the deputies approached, Deputy Stetson instructed the driver to lie down on the ground. The driver yelled back that he would not comply and asked what he had done wrong. Stetson and the driver repeated the conversation nine times, with the driver becoming more belligerent. At one point, the driver reached toward his open truck door but then returned his hands to the air. The driver had three warnings that deputies would tase him if he did not obey. Stetson tased the driver. Deputies then handcuffed him. The driver was not Powell but was the vehicle’s owner, Shanaberg. Powell had allegedly stolen the vehicle months before, but the police later recovered it. The vehicle remained in the stolen-vehicle database. Shanaberg sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Stetson, finding he was entitled to qualified immunity on Shanaberg’s excessive-force claim. Given what Stetson knew, it was objectively reasonable to tase Shanaberg after warning him. View "Shanaberg v. Licking County" on Justia Law

Doe sued the University for violating his due-process rights during a disciplinary hearing. The Sixth Circuit remanded Doe’s case in light of a related ruling requiring live hearings and cross-examination in such proceedings. Upon remand, the district judge, frustrated with the University’s apparent foot-dragging, scheduled a settlement conference and required the University’s president to attend. The University requested that the president be allowed to attend by telephone but the district judge refused. The University then requested permission to send someone with both more knowledge about the sexual assault policy at issue and full settlement authority. The judge again refused, stating he wanted the president to be there even if someone else with full settlement authority attended, and “even if the parties [we]re able to resolve" the issue. The University planned for the president to attend. Two days before the settlement conference, the district judge decided that the conference (which he had assured the University would be private) should be a public event, stating that “the University’s public filing of a Motion to Dismiss . . . . The filing incited confusion amongst the media.” The Sixth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus, finding that the district judge acted beyond his power and abused his discretion. Neither Congress nor the Constitution granted the judge the power to order a specific state official to attend a public settlement conference. View "In re: University of Michigan" on Justia Law

Convicted of criminal sexual assault and domestic violence, Clark argued that his convictions should be set aside based on a Sixth (and Fourteenth) Amendment violation that allegedly arose when a scheduling error prohibited his lawyers from being physically present at his competency hearing. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected the claim on the ground that the attorneys nonetheless were able to communicate with Clark and the court about the competency report and all agreed that he no longer would challenge his competence. Clark filed an unsuccessful federal habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. No U.S. Supreme Court case requires a different result. The state court reasonably denied Clark’s claim of structural error. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a defendant can show a Sixth Amendment violation without the need to prove prejudice when there is a “complete denial of counsel” at, or counsel is “totally absent” from, a “critical stage of the proceedings.” The state did not prevent Clark’s attorneys from attending the hearing and the error was mitigated by the attorneys’ earlier communication with Clark and the judge about the competency report and earlier decision not to challenge his competence any longer. View "Clark v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

In 2015, Davis was the Rowan County, Kentucky County Clerk, responsible for issuing marriage licenses. Same-sex marriage offended her religious beliefs; when the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether. When plaintiffs, same-sex couples, sought marriage licenses they could not get them. Plaintiffs sued Davis in her individual capacity and in her official capacity, seeking damages. In a different lawsuit, the district court enjoined Davis from refusing to issue marriage licenses. After the injunction, plaintiffs obtained marriage licenses. Before the Sixth Circuit could rule on the injunction, Kentucky legislators changed the law and Davis began to issue licenses without objection. The Sixth Circuit dismissed Davis's appeal of the injunction. Davis then moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that sovereign immunity shielded her from suit in her official capacity and that qualified immunity shielded her from suit in her individual capacity. The Sixth Circuit held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity shields Davis as an official because, when refusing to issue marriage licenses, she acted on Kentucky’s behalf, not on Rowan County’s behalf. The doctrine of qualified immunity does not shield Davis as an individual; the plaintiffs adequately alleged she violated plaintiffs’ right to marry, which was clearly established when she acted. View "Yates v. Davis" on Justia Law

A1 learned that government auditors thought that the company had overcharged a federal agency by several million dollars for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries. A1 challenged the auditors’ decisions at two levels of the Medicare appeals process but changed the auditors’ minds only in a few minor ways. The government tried to start collecting the money, as the regulatory regime allows, 42 U.S.C. 1395ff(a)(5), (c)(3)(E). Fearing bankruptcy from the government’s recoupment efforts, A1 obtained a preliminary injunction, barring the government from recouping the money until A1 received a hearing before an administrative law judge. The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction, first holding that although A1 did not proceed to the third and fourth levels of the administrative appeal, the district court had jurisdiction over A1’s constitutional claims. On the merits, the court identified unanswered questions regarding the statistics concerning the relief likely to be obtained at the third level of administrative review; details about A1’s choice not to take advantage of an option to escalate its claim to the fourth and final level of administrative review; and the parties’ awareness of a recoupment option that might have allowed A1 to obtain an ALJ hearing before making most or even all of its recoupment payments. View "A1 Diabetes & Medical Supply v. Alex Azar II" on Justia Law

The day after a controlled buy, Detroit police officer Benitez obtained a warrant to search 12011 Bramell. His affidavit stated that a reliable confidential informant had been at two Burnette addresses and “12011 BRAMELL (the target location) and that a certain drug dealer had been selling cocaine and heroin out of 9542 Burnette for several months. Burnette Street and Bramell are eight miles apart. Benitez could not have simultaneously observed the locations as stated in the affidavit. Detroit police executed the warrant at Bramell, which is owned by Butler, a retiree with no prior convictions or links to drug operations. Officers asked for Butler's ID, which Butler provided; he stated he had a concealed pistol license and was carrying a weapon. Butler was handcuffed. Sergeant Meadows “slammed” him “against the wall.” Butler had sustained a serious neck injury during military service, resulting in a spinal fusion operation and disability-based retirement. The “slam” reinjured him. From the house, the police recovered $3,702 cash, weapons, a bulletproof vest, and ibuprofen pills. The state did not charge Butler, who filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Meadows on the excessive force claim and reversed the denial of qualified immunity to Benitez on the false affidavit claim. Assaulting an unarmed, compliant individual is a clearly-established violation of the Fourth Amendment. Removing alleged falsehoods, Benitez had not personally seen suspicious activity at Bramell but he corroborated what the informant stated about the Burnette addresses. Officers need not corroborate every detail provided by an informant to show the informant’s reliability. Even without personally observing any drug activity at Bramell, Benitez put enough in the affidavit for a magistrate to conclude that the informant—who was correct about everything else—would be right that Bramell was a “stash house.” View "Butler v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

In 1995, Pike and Slemmer, students at the Knoxville Job Corps Center, had a strained relationship; Pike told Iloilo, that she intended to kill Slemmer. The next day, Iloilo observed Pike and Slemmer together. That night, Pike told Iloilo that she had just killed Slemmer and showed Iloilo a piece of Slemmers’s skull, describing many details about the murder. Pike made similar statements to another student. After Slemmer’s body was found, police quickly discovered Pike’s connection to the crime. Pike waived her Miranda rights and gave a complete statement. At trial, much of Pike’s defense centered on her mental health. A jury convicted Pike of premeditated first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. At a sentencing hearing, Pike’s attorney, Talman, originally intended to rely on the testimony of Dr. McCoy, a mitigation expert; shortly before the hearing, Talman switched his plan and called only Pike’s relatives to testify about Pike’s difficult childhood, and her behavioral problems throughout her adolescence.The jury sentenced Pike to death by electrocution. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed. State courts also denied postconviction relief, concluding that Pike’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present alternative expert testimony or additional lay testimony on compelling mitigation in her life history. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her federal habeas petition; the state court’s determination that she is unable to establish prejudice on her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Pike v. Gross" on Justia Law

One summer night in 2015, at a Louisville nightclub, someone discharged a firearm, shooting eight people. Six of those people sued the nightclub’s owner, Cole’s Place, in state court, arguing that Cole’s Place failed to protect them from foreseeable harm. United Specialty Insurance (USIC) obtained a federal declaratory judgment that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Cole’s Place in the state court litigation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising Declaratory Judgment Act jurisdiction over USIC’s lawsuit and did not err in finding that an assault-and-battery exclusion in Cole’s Place’s insurance policy with USIC applies to the state court litigation. There are no factual issues remaining in the state-court litigation or complex state-law issues that are “important to an informed resolution” of this case. View "United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Cole's Place, Inc." on Justia Law