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

In a case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiff Jeffrey Hughes, an inmate in a Tennessee state prison, sued the Tennessee Board of Parole, alleging that the Board's refusal to move up his parole hearing date resulted in his overincarceration. Hughes believed that a recent change in state law entitled him to an earlier parole hearing. The Board refused his request, and he was paroled about three months after the date he believed he became eligible for release. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that the defendants, members of the Board, were absolutely immune from suit for their acts. Hughes then appealed.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the members of the Tennessee Board of Parole were entitled to absolute immunity from damages suits challenging its decision on when to hold a parole hearing. The court found that the Board's decision to schedule (or not to reschedule) a parole hearing was a judicial act, akin to a judge scheduling a court hearing. As such, the defendants were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and were entitled to absolute immunity. The court also rejected Hughes's arguments of judicial estoppel and res judicata, stating that the defendants could not have raised their immunity defense in the previous state suit and thus were not barred from raising it in the present federal suit. View "Hughes v. Duncan" on Justia Law

The case involved defendant Antwaun Allen who was found guilty of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. The defendant had been involved in a police sting operation where he sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant. At sentencing, he requested a downward variance from his Guidelines range, arguing the government's role in his offense, criticizing the Guidelines' treatment of meth purity, and pointing out mitigating offense and character traits. Ultimately, he was sentenced to 108 months, at the bottom of his Guidelines range.On appeal, Allen puts forth three arguments: (1) his sentence is procedurally unreasonable as the district court failed to address the government's provocation of his offense, (2) his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court ceded its sentencing discretion to Congress, and (3) his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court relied solely on the meth's weight and purity, neglecting his "whole person."The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected all three arguments. The court held that the district court properly addressed all non-frivolous arguments raised by Allen, did not cede its discretion to Congress, and did not abuse its discretion in weighing sentencing factors. The court affirmed Allen's sentence of 108 months. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

In a multi-district litigation involving diabetes drug saxagliptin, the plaintiffs claimed that the drug caused their heart failure. They presented a single expert to show the drug could cause heart failure. After a Daubert hearing and expert motions, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the expert's testimony was unreliable due to methodological flaws and therefore excluded it. Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that other evidence created a genuine issue of material fact. The court also refused the plaintiffs' request for ninety days to find a replacement expert. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the district court's exclusion of their expert, its grant of summary judgment, and its refusal to give them more time to find another expert witness. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, stating that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit. The court found that the expert's reliance on one study to the exclusion of all others was unreliable, that his use of animal data was unreliable due to his admitted lack of qualifications to analyze such studies, and that he did not reliably apply the Bradford Hill criteria - a scientific framework used to analyze whether an association between two variables is causal. The court also found that all jurisdictions require expert testimony to show general causation in complex medical cases such as this one. As the plaintiffs failed to identify a reliable general causation expert, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court also found no good cause to grant the plaintiffs more time to find a replacement expert. View "In re Onglyza (Saxagliptin) and Kombiglyze (Saxagliptin and Metformin) Products Liability Litigation" on Justia Law

The case involves Deaunta Belcher who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for his participation in a murder-for-hire scheme, hindering the investigation of a federal offense, and two other offenses. Belcher appealed his conviction, arguing that his murder-for-hire conviction was invalid because the government and the court constructively amended the indictment, and therefore he was sentenced for a crime he was not charged with. He also claimed that his obstruction conviction was invalid due to the government's prejudicial variation from the indictment at trial. Lastly, Belcher argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the obstruction charge.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the government constructively amended Belcher's superseding indictment as to his charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), the federal murder-for-hire statute. However, the court found that despite the constructive amendment, Belcher was not entitled to relief because he was aware from the outset that the government was pursuing an enhanced penalty under the "death results" statutory enhancement of § 1958(a).Regarding the claim of indictment variance, the court held that the government did not impermissibly vary the superseding indictment with reference to evidence uncovered at trial in response to Belcher's motions for acquittal. Thus, the court found no prejudicial variance.Lastly, the court found that the government offered sufficient evidence at trial to convict Belcher of the offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) because the evidence showed that Belcher tried to deceive law enforcement from the outset by suggesting that the shooter killed the victim because he was an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). View "United States v. Belcher" on Justia Law

The case involves Indian citizens Sanket and Nehaben Patel who sued the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ur Jaddou, under the Administrative Procedure Act for unreasonable delay in processing their applications for U visas. After their visas were granted, the Director moved to dismiss the case for mootness and attached an exhibit showing the applications' approval. The Director then realized she had not filed the exhibit under seal, violating the rule prohibiting the disclosure of information relating to noncitizens who are U visa applicants and recipients. The Patels sought civil penalties for the disclosure of their personal information. The district court dismissed the case and denied the Patels' motion for civil penalties, stating that any disclosure was not willful.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Director's disclosure of the Patels' visa application status was not "willful" under 8 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court reasoned that the term "willful" refers to actions that are intentional or knowing, as opposed to accidental. The court noted that the Director realized her mistake in not filing the exhibit under seal, promptly contacted the court to seal the exhibit, and the information disclosed was already revealed in the Patels’ unsealed complaint. Therefore, the disclosure was not considered willful but at most amounted to negligence. View "Patel v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

In the case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the defendant, Robert Whipple, appealed the denial of his motions to suppress evidence. Whipple was charged with bank robbery for three incidents that occurred in March 2020. He claimed that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they subpoenaed Walmart for his purchase history, searched his phone after the expiration of the warrant for his phone, and unlawfully seized his car.The court affirmed the district court's denial of Whipple’s motions to suppress evidence, finding no merit in his claims. The court held that the subpoena for Whipple's specific purchase at Walmart, which was linked to the robbery, did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court concluded that Whipple did not demonstrate a legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy in his specific purchase and subscriber information. His information was not automatically disclosed; instead, he actively and voluntarily disclosed his information to Walmart, and thus the third-party doctrine applied.Regarding the seizure and subsequent search of his car, the court applied the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which allows law enforcement to seize and search an automobile where there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found in the car. The court held that there was probable cause to believe that Whipple used his car during the bank robberies and that it contained evidence of those crimes.Lastly, the court held that the search of Whipple’s cellphone was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, despite being conducted after the initial warrant had expired. The court noted that the federal rules of criminal procedure permit law enforcement to conduct searches of lawfully seized phones after they are seized, and a warrant's execution date does not apply to off-site investigation and analysis of a cellphone's contents. View "United States v. Whipple" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs Mark Bambach and his minor children sued defendants Gina Moegle and Susan Shaw, employees of Michigan's Children’s Protective Services, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that Moegle and Shaw violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by removing the children from Bambach's custody without a warrant and failing to return them after Bambach revoked his consent for the children to stay with their mother during an investigation into allegations of child abuse. The court found that no clearly established law put the state defendants on notice that they were violating the Bambach's Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights. The court determined that the key factual dispute underpinning the remaining claims was whether Bambach’s children were removed from his custody without his consent from December 29, 2015, to January 14, 2016. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Bambach had revoked his consent to his children’s placement with their mother by expressing to Moegle that he wanted to see his children and wanted to know when they would be back. But the court did not assess whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. The court found that Moegle and Shaw were entitled to qualified immunity as they could not have been on notice that their actions were unconstitutional. The court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants. View "Bambach v. Moegle" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the United States in a case involving civil penalties for failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). The defendant, James J. Kelly Jr., was a U.S. citizen who had a bank account in Switzerland with a balance exceeding $10,000, which required him to file an FBAR with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Failure to do so risks civil penalties. The government sued Kelly for willfully failing to timely file FBARs for 2013, 2014, and 2015. The district court granted summary judgment to the government.The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kelly's failure to comply with his FBAR obligations was reckless, if not knowing. The court argued that Kelly had taken steps to intentionally evade his legal duties and acted with objective recklessness. Despite being aware of his FBAR obligations and participating in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), Kelly failed to ensure that the FBARs were submitted. His failure to consult with any professionals about his tax obligations and his considerable efforts to keep his account secret were further evidence of his willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. Thus, the court concluded that Kelly's failure to satisfy his FBAR requirements for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was a willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In this case, Autumn Wind Lending, LLC (Autumn Wind) had lent money to Insight Terminal Solutions, LLC (Insight) under an agreement that Insight would not incur any further debt without Autumn Wind's consent. However, Insight defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, during which it was revealed that it had taken on additional debt from other parties, including John J. Siegel and three family enterprises. Autumn Wind, which had become the parent company of Insight, then filed a lawsuit against these parties, alleging fraud and tortious interference. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was asked to decide whether the doctrine of res judicata, which bars relitigation of a claim that has been adjudicated, prevented Autumn Wind from bringing these claims. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar Autumn Wind from bringing its claims. The court reasoned that the claims had not been "actually litigated" because they were dismissed by stipulation in the bankruptcy court, not decided on the merits. Furthermore, Autumn Wind could not have litigated these claims in the bankruptcy court because it was not a party to the bankruptcy proceedings. The court therefore reversed the district court's dismissal of Autumn Wind's claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Autumn Wind Lending, LLC v. Siegel" on Justia Law

Stephen Caudle, a truck driver for Hard Drive Express, Inc., sued his employer alleging that he was fired in retaliation for attempting to report unlawful employment practices. The case focuses on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), with Caudle arguing that his firing was a response to his complaints about Hard Drive's failure to reimburse him for time and money spent on repairs. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the employer, interpreting Caudle's complaints as related only to Hard Drive's paid-time-off policy, and therefore not protected under FLSA or WPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision, holding that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Caudle's complaints were about vacation pay or the company's failure to compensate him for repairs. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Caudle's complaints could have put the company on notice of potential violations of the FLSA, and therefore his firing could be seen as a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA and Michigan WPA. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Caudle v. Hard Drive Express, Inc." on Justia Law