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

An Ohio jury found Hautzenroeder, a high school teacher, guilty of one count of sexual battery involving a student. Although her state court appeals were unsuccessful, the trial court suspended most of her two-year prison sentence and discharged her early from community control. No court could suspend Hautzenroeder’s statutorily-mandated classification as a Tier III sex offender with lifetime reporting requirements, Ohio Rev. Code 2950.01(G)(1)(a), 2950.07(B)(1). Hautzenroeder’s federal habeas petition alleged a due process violation stemming from insufficient evidence supporting her conviction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction because Hautzenroeder filed it after her period of incarceration and community control expired— she was no longer “in custody.” Changes in Ohio’s registration requirements did not mean that being subject to the requirements would constitute being in custody. View "Hautzenroeder v. DeWine" on Justia Law

The previous case involving the same parties involved automobile dealerships from Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Florida, California, and Wisconsin, whose franchise agreements were rejected during Chrysler’s bankruptcy, but who had arbitrated successfully under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, to be reinstated as dealers. The Sixth Circuit held that certain provisions of Michigan and Nevada law were preempted by the Act, but upheld, as unchallenged on appeal, the decision that similar provisions of Ohio law were not preempted. The state laws grant existing dealerships certain rights to protest the installation of competing dealerships in the same vicinity. Spitzer, a party to the previous case, explicitly declined to argue preemption of the Ohio statute. Spitzer and others are now engaged in a protest proceeding before the Ohio Motor Vehicles Dealer Board. Chrysler sued to enjoin Spitzer from relitigating the preemption issue before the Board. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a holding that collateral estoppel precludes Spitzer from raising the preemption issue. Spitzer cannot now make the argument that it “so clearly gave up” in earlier litigation with the same parties regarding the same facts. Younger abstention is not applicable because the Ohio dealer protest proceeding is unlike any of the three types of cases to which Younger applies. View "FCA US, LLC v. Spitzer Autoworld Akron, LLC" on Justia Law

A dog’s sniff alerted law enforcement to a suspicious-smelling package, which contained methamphetamine. The intended recipient was “B. PERKINS,” at his Belvidere, Tennessee address. A trusted confidential informant had known Perkins for 20 years and had purchased methamphetamine from him within the past six months. Local law enforcement also knew Perkins to be a methamphetamine dealer. Based on this information, DEA officer Warren obtained an anticipatory warrant to search Perkins’s residence. An anticipatory search only becomes effective upon the happening of some triggering condition, which establishes probable cause. Warren proposed that DEA officer Brewer pose as a FedEx driver, knock at Perkins' door with the package in hand, and deliver the package: Delivery to Perkins was the triggering event. Brewer went in with the erroneous impression that he simply needed to deliver the package to someone at the residence. Brewer knocked and a woman came to the door. Brewer asked her if she was expecting a package. “Yes, we are,” she said. Brewer did not ask who she was nor did he confirm that “we” referred to Perkins, nor did he know whether Perkins was present. Brewer simply gave her the package. Officers executed the search. Perkins was not present and did not arrive until an hour later. Perkins was charged with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The Sixth Circuit affirmed an order granting Perkins’ motion to suppress. The “operative transaction” specified in the warrant did not occur. View "United States v. William Perkins" on Justia Law

Toll was in solitary confinement at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution when he allegedly threw liquid at a correctional officer. The commander decided to extract Toll from his cell. After the cell extraction team (Doss and Horton) removed Toll from his cell, Toll became unresponsive. A doctor pronounced him dead. Toll’s mother, Luna, sued Horton and Doss in their individual capacities for excessive force, and Bell, the warden, for failure to train (42 U.S.C. 1983). In 2013, the district court entered judgments in favor of the defendants. In 2014, the New York Times published an article about the cell extraction team, based on a letter written by a former team member. Based on this new evidence, Luna was granted a new trial. The court declined to award sanctions because the defendants did not act in bad faith in failing to produce the letter and granted summary judgment, rejecting the claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the order granting a new trial and reversed the summary judgment. Luna acted diligently in requesting discovery responses that should have included the letter, which was material, controlling evidence. Summary judgment was inappropriate because the court granted a completely new trial, requiring a new jury to examine anew all factual disputes; the court should have reviewed all material facts in a light most favorable to Luna. View "Luna v. Bell" on Justia Law

Debtors filed their Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in Ohio. They had homes in Ohio and Maryland and listed the Ohio Home as their residence, claiming a $265,800 homestead exemption (Ohio Revised Code 2329.66(A)(1)). They asserted their intent surrender their Maryland Home. During the 11 U.S.C. 341 Meeting of Creditors the debtors told the Trustee they wanted to move to Maryland, stating they had been commuting between Ohio and Maryland. They gave confusing responses about where they lived and where they intended to live. Ohio law permits each debtor to claim a $132,9001 exemption in a primary residence, while Maryland limits the exemption to $6,000, which may not be claimed by both spouses in the same proceeding. The bankruptcy court sustained the Trustee’s objection to the homestead exemption because the Ohio home was not their domicile during the 730 days immediately preceding their Chapter 7 filing, as required by 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(A). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In deciding that the debtors’ domicile was Maryland, the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standards, noting "the tardy disclosure of an intricate organization that defies all explanation of necessity” and that the “Debtors’ credibility in providing complete and candid answers suffers” and that their “change in heart is a tactic to shield a valuable asset, rather than a valid assertion of domicile.” View "In re Felix" on Justia Law

Mischler filed a civil rights action against multiple government officials. She asked the district court judge to recuse himself from the case under 28 U.S.C. 144. On March 2, 2018, the district court denied Mischler’s motion. On March 7, Mischler appealed the order. The Sixth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The district court has not entered a final appealable order terminating all of the issues presented in the litigation. An order denying recusal is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. A possible exception applies only when a petitioner alleges that delay will cause irreparable harm. While Mischler insists that the judge “should have recused” himself “because his paramour” is an employee of one of the defendants, she made no argument “that the harm [she] might suffer if forced to await the final outcome . . . is any greater than the harm suffered by any litigant forced to wait.” View "Mischler v. Bevin" on Justia Law

Maben, a Michigan prisoner, was in line for lunch. The server provided Maben with half a serving, dumping out the rest, stating that he “was doing as told.” Before Maben could speak to a supervisor, Thelen, a prison guard, “began yelling,” “shut the fuck up if you wanna eat.” The supervisor “acknowledged the severely inadequate portion,” and gave Maben the full portion. Thelen stated “if you’re going to complain then you’re going to get a misconduct,” then issued Maben a ticket. Maben claimed that he never became disruptive, but has had shortened portions ever since, because of Thelen's retaliation. A hearing officer found Thelen’s statement “more credible” without viewing video footage, Maben was found guilty of creating a disturbance and lost privileges for seven days. The court rejected Maben's pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuit on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part; factual findings made at Maben’s minor misconduct hearing do not have preclusive effect in federal court. The court declined to adopt the “checkmate doctrine,” which provides that when a prison body finds that a prisoner has committed an actual violation of prison rules and the finding is based on some evidence, it "essentially checkmates" a retaliation claim. Maben introduced sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court affirmed summary judgment on Maben’s official-capacity claim, citing the Eleventh Amendment. View "Maben v. Thelen" on Justia Law

The Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP), designed to increase recruiting to the Air National Guard during the “War on Terror” was run by Docupak, a private corporation. Docupak selected and trained Recruiting Assistants (RAs) to find and direct potential airmen to full-time recruiters. The program paid a $1,000 pre-loaded gift card upon actual enlistment of a potential airman and another $1,000 upon the airman’s completion of training. The RAs were to identify individuals that were not already working with a full-time recruiter and were prohibited from splitting the payment with full-time recruiters. Osborne, a full-time recruiter, was accused of referring names of pre-existing recruits to RA Andolsek so that they could claim the incentive, with kickbacks to Osborne. Osborne was charged with aiding Andolsek in embezzling from the Department of Defense, 18 U.S.C. 641; 18 U.S.C. 2, which “caused” the Department to reimburse Docupak for $9,000. Andolsek pleaded guilty and testified against Osborne. Osborne argued that the funds were stolen from a private contractor, so they only violated Docupak’s internal policy, not a federal regulation. The Sixth Circuit reversed Osborne’s conviction. No reasonable jury could have found that the funds were something of value to the government beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidence of control. The government did not retain a reversionary interest in the funds and imposed few restrictions. Docupak gave the government access to information, but the government did not retain the right to conduct audits. View "United States v. Osborne" on Justia Law

The Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP), designed to increase recruiting to the Air National Guard during the “War on Terror” was run by Docupak, a private corporation. Docupak selected and trained Recruiting Assistants (RAs) to find and direct potential airmen to full-time recruiters. The program paid a $1,000 pre-loaded gift card upon actual enlistment of a potential airman and another $1,000 upon the airman’s completion of training. The RAs were to identify individuals that were not already working with a full-time recruiter and were prohibited from splitting the payment with full-time recruiters. Osborne, a full-time recruiter, was accused of referring names of pre-existing recruits to RA Andolsek so that they could claim the incentive, with kickbacks to Osborne. Osborne was charged with aiding Andolsek in embezzling from the Department of Defense, 18 U.S.C. 641; 18 U.S.C. 2, which “caused” the Department to reimburse Docupak for $9,000. Andolsek pleaded guilty and testified against Osborne. Osborne argued that the funds were stolen from a private contractor, so they only violated Docupak’s internal policy, not a federal regulation. The Sixth Circuit reversed Osborne’s conviction. No reasonable jury could have found that the funds were something of value to the government beyond a reasonable doubt, given the evidence of control. The government did not retain a reversionary interest in the funds and imposed few restrictions. Docupak gave the government access to information, but the government did not retain the right to conduct audits. View "United States v. Osborne" on Justia Law

A jury found that the Michigan Department of State Police had retaliated against Mys, a former desk sergeant with the Department, by transferring her from her longtime post in Newaygo, Michigan, to a post in Detroit. Department officials initiated the process that culminated in Sgt. Mys’s transfer shortly after she had filed the second of two complaints alleging sexual assault and sexual harassment by her coworker, Sergeant Miller. Mys was awarded $350,000 in compensatory damages. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the Department’s claim that the trial record contains no evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found in Mys’s favor or upon which the jury’s award could be justified. The court noted several misstatements of facts by the Department’s attorney. The Department conceded that the long distance of the Detroit post from Mys’s home made her transfer there an adverse employment action; her supervisor initiated the transfer process with explicit reference to Mys’s complaints, explaining to both his superior and the Human Resources Department that Mys’s transfer was necessary for one reason and one reason only: her sexual-harassment complaints. An “unbroken chain” connects Mys’s supervisor to her transfer. View "Mys v. Michigan Department of State Police" on Justia Law