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

Peffer, a caregiver, grew marijuana for medical-marijuana patients and sold the excess to Beemer’s Medical Marijuana Dispensary. Beemer became a confidential informant. Driving to meet Beemer, Peffer was stopped by Officer Coon, who found marijuana in Peffer’s vehicle. Peffer was arrested. Months later, Child Services and the School District received letters, purportedly from Coon, expressing concern for Beemer’s children. Coon thought Peffer was responsible. Investigating officers had other suspects. Later, Trooper Glentz, investigating the letters, received what appeared to be marijuana seeds in mailed packages. Fliers identifying Beemer as a confidential informant, with an ostensibly official list of charges against Beemer, were mailed to businesses. Various factors pointed to Peffer. Sergeant Stephens obtained a warrant for the Peffer house, authorizing the search of electronic devices, electronic communications, and mailing items. Stephens asserted that the house “may contain evidence of the crime of Impersonating a Police Officer and Witness Intimidation.” After investigation of items seized in the search, prosecutors declined to pursue charges against Peffer. Peffer sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Stephens. The warrant was supported by probable cause. That the affidavit did not allege that Peffer owned a computer or that he kept one at his residence is immaterial because the averment that he used one in the commission of a crime created the presumption that it would be found at his residence. Stephens was entitled to qualified immunity. Even if sending the letters were not criminal under Michigan law, the law on this point was not clearly established. View "Peffer v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Diaz entered the U.S. in 2002. She was apprehended in 2007 and placed in removal proceedings. At a 2012 hearing, Diaz sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that she believed the La Familia drug cartel, would seek revenge for her brother’s refusal to work for them. The IJ found that Diaz’s asylum application untimely, assessed her claim under the higher “clear probability of persecution” standard for withholding of removal, and denied relief, noting that the cartel had not harmed or threatened her or anyone in her family other than her brother. The BIA dismissed an appeal. Diaz was allowed to remain in the U.S. She received work authorization and regularly reported to ICE. In 2017, Diaz learned that her father had been kidnapped by the Knights Templar Mexican cartel and that the kidnappers stated that they were looking for Diaz’s brother. They specifically mentioned Diaz and threatened to hurt family members. Diaz moved to reopen and to stay removal, citing “changed country conditions.” ICE apprehended Diaz outside her home and scheduled her removal. The BIA denied her stay of removal. The Sixth Circuit dismissed her petition for review. Diaz was deported. The BIA then declined to reopen. The Sixth Circuit vacated. The BIA failed to credit the facts in Diaz’s declarations, which undermined its conclusion and abused its discretion in summarily rejecting Diaz’s Convention Against Torture argument that she could not safely relocate internally in Mexico. View "Trujillo Diaz v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Lee pleaded guilty to three crimes in Tennessee state court, served his sentences, and was released from state custody in 1998. While serving time in federal prison for a subsequent crime, 20 years later, Lee sought permission to file a second 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition attacking his state convictions. The Sixth Circuit denied his motions. Federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Lee’s petition regardless of whether he can meet sections 2244(b)’s requirements. Section 2254(a), authorizing district courts to entertain state prisoners’ habeas petitions expressly limits their jurisdiction to petitions filed by persons “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” Lee is no longer in custody, nor on supervised release, pursuant to the state judgment he seeks to attack. That Lee’s state convictions resulted in an enhanced federal sentence does not affect that analysis. View "In re: Lee" on Justia Law

Working at Ford’s Twin Cities Plant in 2001, Saunders’s right arm got caught in a machine, causing him to lose almost all use of that arm. Saunders received workers’ compensation. He returned to work with restrictions that prohibited heavy lifting, engaging in repetitive motions, or using his right arm. Ford assigned him to temporary jobs, then to an airbag-installation job, but placed him on “no-work-available” (NWA) status when he developed carpal-tunnel syndrome. Ford assigned Saunders to a torque-inspector job, where Saunders worked for eight years. Ford transferred Saunders to Louisville in 2012, after Twin Cities closed. The Plant, in flux as dozens of Ford plants closed, allowed Saunders to continue working as an inspector for another year, although he lacked the seniority for the position there. After the Plant integrated its new workers, it reopened jobs to the normal bid process. A senior worker displaced Saunders, who was placed in short-term jobs, had periods of medical leave, and was on NWA status. Saunders got a permanent assignment in 2014, which he retains. Before that placement, Saunders filed grievances, then filed suit (Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185), alleging that Ford breached its collective bargaining unit by placing him on NWA status, retaliated after he reopened his workers’ compensation claim, and that his union failed to fully pursue his grievances. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Ford. Ford had a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for placing Saunders on NWA status that no reasonable juror could conclude was pretextual. Breach of the duty of fair representation is not established merely by proof that the underlying grievance was meritorious. View "Saunders v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Leapers makes rifle scopes, textured with “knurling,” allowing users to grip the products more easily and to make fine-tuned adjustments. Knurling can be found on many items, including door handles, coin edges, and bottle lids. Leapers asserts that its unique knurling pattern is distinctly “ornamental” and allows consumers to recognize Leapers as the item's source. Leapers had an exclusive manufacturing contract with the Nantong factory in China, which agreed to never disclose information related to the products. Leapers ended that relationship. The factory agreed to stop using technical specifications, product design and packaging design documents related to Leaper and to destroy parts, accessories, and attachments related to Leaper’s products. Factory manager Shi formed a company (Trarms) and began selling rifle scopes and manufacturing rifle scopes for other sellers, including Defendant. Leaper’s sued, alleging trade dress infringement of the knurling design under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 105. Shi refused to testify, asserting the Fifth Amendment. Trarms refused to provide an alternate witness. The court granted Defendant summary judgment, reasoning that Leapers could not prove essential elements: nonfunctionality and secondary meaning, regardless of Shi 's testimony. The Sixth Circuit vacated. A jury could reasonably conclude that the design is purely ornamental and nonfunctional; that it does not represent a technological advancement; and that exclusive use of Leaper’s design would not put competitors at a significant, non-reputation related disadvantage. View "Leapers, Inc. v. SMTS, LLC" on Justia Law

Herald-Leader sells and distributes Community News, a weekly four- to six-page non-subscription publication, containing local news and advertising for Lexington, Kentucky and the surrounding area. Herald-Leader delivers Community News free of charge to more than 100,000 households each week, including by driveway delivery. Lexington adopted an ordinance that permits the delivery of “unsolicited written materials” only: to a porch, nearest the front door; securely attached to the front door; through a mail slot; between an exterior front door and an interior front door; in a distribution box on or adjacent to the premises, if permitted; or personally with the owner, occupant, or lessee. Before the law went into effect, Herald-Leader obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent its enforcement. The Sixth Circuit reversed and vacated the injunction, finding that Herald-Leader had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claim. The ordinance is narrowly tailored to further the city’s goals of reducing visual blight and reducing litter. The court rejected an overbreadth argument and stated that, in determining whether the law leaves adequate alternative methods of communication, the district court failed to balance expense against the harms that can arise when cheap and efficient methods of circulating written materials are abused. View "Lexington H-L Services, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government" on Justia Law

In 2014, voters approved an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution making clear that the Constitution is not to be construed as securing or protecting a right to abortion or requiring funding of an abortion (Amendment 1). Plaintiffs, individual voters, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting that, in counting the votes on Amendment 1, state officials incorrectly interpreted Article XI, Section 3 of the Tennessee Constitution, which states: if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of all the citizens of the State voting for Governor, voting in their favor, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution. The district court ordered the state officials to recount the votes in accordance with plaintiffs’ proposed interpretation. The Sixth Circuit reversed. A state-court declaratory judgment on the meaning of Article XI, Section 3 is entitled to conclusive effect and the method of counting votes employed by state officials in 2014 was faithful to the actual meaning of the provision. This is not the “exceptional case” that warrants federal intervention in a lawful state election. There was no cognizable infringement of plaintiffs’ due process rights; plaintiffs failed to identify how their right to vote was burdened by disparate treatment. View "George v. Hargett" on Justia Law

Miller was sentenced to death for a 1981 murder. A psychiatrist who examined Miller twice found him competent to stand trial and opined that Miller was not insane at the time of the murder. The court denied Miller’s request to appoint a psychiatrist to assist at trial. His sentence was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his section 2254 habeas petition, considering only the denial of state funds for an independent mental-health expert during the guilt phase of Miller’s trial and a challenge to the jury instructions. Seeking to revisit his ineffective-assistance claim, previously found to have been procedurally defaulted, under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez (2012) and Trevino (2013), Miller unsuccessfully moved for relief from judgment under FRCP 60(b)(6). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. The Supreme Court rulings allow a prisoner to show cause to excuse an otherwise-defaulted ineffective assistance claim by presenting a substantial claim, showing that state law required him to bring that claim during an initial-review post-conviction proceeding, and showing that he received either no assistance or ineffective assistance during that initial state post-conviction proceeding. Given the uncertainty of establishing prejudice, his claim is not “unquestionably meritorious” and he has not presented a clear case of ineffective assistance that overcomes other relevant equitable factors, especially Miller’s lack of diligence in raising his Martinez claim. View "Miller v. Mays" on Justia Law

Downs pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 846. On August 2, 2010, the court orally pronounced a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, then the mandatory-minimum. The next day, the President signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced to five the mandatory minimum sentence for Downs's crime. On August 16, 2010, the court entered judgment in Downs’s case. In 2012, the Supreme Court held that the Act applied to defendants sentenced after August 3, 2010. Downs moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that he was not “sentenced” until the district court entered its judgment. The district court and Sixth Circuit disagreed. The law uniformly treats the date of the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence as the date of sentencing. While his co-defendants had later hearings and were sentenced under the Act, a court needs” legal grounds, not just equitable ones,” to apply the Act. Downs’s counsel was not constitutionally incompetent; the Act said nothing about having any retroactive effect. District courts are generally bound by the sentences they orally pronounce, so a motion for reconsideration would have been futile, as would a direct appeal. View "Downs v. United States" on Justia Law

Cincinnati ordinances provide guidelines for selecting the “lowest and best bidder” on Department of Sewers projects to “ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, minimize waste, and promote worker safety and fair treatment of workers” and for bids for “Greater Cincinnati Water Works and the stormwater management utility division,” to employ skilled contractors, committed to the city’s “safety, quality, time, and budgetary concerns.” Allied alleged that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted: a requirement that the bidder certify whether it contributes to a health care plan for employees working on the project as part of the employee’s regular compensation; a requirement that the bidder similarly certify whether it contributes to an employee pension or retirement program; and imposition of an apprenticeship standard. Allied asserts that the only apprenticeship program that meets that requirement is the Union’s apprenticeship program, which is not available to non-Union contractors. The ordinances also require the winning contractor to pay $.10 per hour per worker into a city-managed pre-apprenticeship training fund, not to be taken from fringe benefits. The district court granted Allied summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Where a state or municipality acts as a proprietor rather than a regulator, it is not subject to ERISA preemption. The city was a market participant here: the benefit-certification requirements and the apprenticeship requirements reflect its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services. View "Allied Construction Industries v. City of Cincinnati" on Justia Law