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

Faytima Howard failed to pay her property taxes, leading Macomb County, Michigan, to seize and sell her property in 2023. Howard sued, claiming the county violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by keeping proceeds exceeding her tax debt. Previously, Michigan's foreclosure regime was found unconstitutional for not compensating property owners for the surplus from foreclosure sales. However, Michigan amended its law in 2020 to allow property owners to claim any surplus value from foreclosed properties. Howard did not utilize this process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Howard's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court noted that Michigan's amended law provided a procedure for property owners to claim surplus proceeds, which Howard did not follow. The district court concluded that because Howard did not take advantage of the process, her claim was invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Michigan's procedure for claiming surplus proceeds from foreclosure sales complies with the Takings Clause, as it provides property owners with a reasonable opportunity to claim any surplus. The court distinguished this case from others where no such process was available, emphasizing that Howard's failure to follow the state procedure meant no taking occurred. The court also rejected Howard's arguments that the process was overly burdensome and that the lack of interest and attorney's fees constituted a taking. The court concluded that Michigan's procedures are constitutionally sound and do not violate the Fifth Amendment. View "Howard v. Macomb Cnty., Mich." on Justia Law

Fathiree Ali, a Muslim inmate, requested the Michigan Department of Corrections to provide him with a halal diet, which is required by his religion. The prison chaplain directed him to apply for the vegan meal option, but another official rejected his application after discovering that Ali had purchased over one hundred non-halal items from the prison commissary. Ali then sued the chaplain, the special activities coordinator, the warden, and the Michigan Department of Corrections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Free Exercise Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Ali’s claims against the Department of Corrections and granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. Ali appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed Ali’s appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the rest of the district court’s decision. The court held that RLUIPA does not authorize money-damages claims against officials sued in their official or individual capacities. The court also found that Ali’s claims for injunctive relief against the chaplain and warden were moot because they no longer had the power to adjust his meal plan after his transfer to a different prison. Additionally, the court held that Ali’s claim for injunctive relief against the special activities coordinator was moot because the coordinator no longer worked for the Department of Corrections.The court concluded that Ali did not have a cognizable claim for injunctive or declaratory relief under RLUIPA because he had alternatives to access halal meat and could reapply for the vegan meal plan. The court also found that Ali failed to state a claim against the Michigan Department of Corrections as he did not identify a policy that violated RLUIPA. Finally, the court held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on Ali’s Free Exercise Clause claims under § 1983. View "Ali v. Adamson" on Justia Law

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Kentucky issued orders prohibiting mass gatherings, including religious services, and closing non-life-sustaining organizations, which included religious organizations. Maryville Baptist Church held an Easter service in defiance of these orders, leading to a lawsuit against the Governor, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky initially declined to issue a preliminary injunction. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a partial stay, allowing outdoor worship. Subsequently, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, permitting both indoor and outdoor worship. The Governor later allowed places of worship to reopen, and the Kentucky General Assembly limited the Governor's authority to issue similar orders in the future. The underlying action was dismissed as moot, and the Church sought attorney’s fees, which the district court denied, ruling that the Church did not prevail.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, which held that a party who receives a preliminary injunction but whose case becomes moot before a final judgment does not qualify as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Applying this precedent, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of attorney’s fees, concluding that the Church's preliminary injunction did not constitute enduring judicial relief that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. View "Maryville Baptist Church v. Beshear" on Justia Law

Aaron Salter spent 15 years in prison for a shooting he did not commit, based on a single eyewitness's testimony. The eyewitness identified Salter from a single mug shot shown by Detective Donald Olsen, who also failed to disclose that the eyewitness had identified another man from a photo array. Salter claims that Olsen's actions led to his wrongful conviction.Salter filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Olsen violated his constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and conducting an unduly suggestive identification process. Olsen moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion. Olsen appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed parts of the appeal for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction but affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the Brady claim and the suggestive identification claim. The court held that there were material disputes of fact regarding whether Olsen withheld evidence and whether the identification process was unduly suggestive and unreliable. The court also found that it was clearly established in 2003 that such actions violated constitutional rights, and thus, Olsen was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Salter v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

On November 30, 2021, a 15-year-old student, E.C., brought a gun to Oxford High School in Michigan and shot ten students and one teacher, resulting in four student deaths. E.C. pled guilty to first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence. His parents were also convicted of manslaughter. Victims of the shooting filed multiple lawsuits in state court against school and law enforcement officials, alleging various tort claims. The consolidated federal cases here involve claims that school officials violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan largely dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to support an inference that the school officials' actions were so outrageous as to shock the conscience. However, the court allowed one claim to proceed, finding that a statement made by a school counselor, Shawn Hopkins, to E.C.'s parents about contacting Child Protective Services if they did not get counseling for E.C. within 48 hours, could potentially support a constitutional claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of most claims. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the school officials' actions were so egregious as to violate due process. The court found that the actions of returning E.C.'s backpack and failing to inform other officials about the risk did not constitute affirmative acts that increased the danger to the plaintiffs. The court also held that Hopkins' statement to E.C.'s parents did not demonstrate reckless or callous indifference. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to allow the claim based on Hopkins' statement to proceed and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss all claims. View "St. Juliana v. Oxford Community School District" on Justia Law

Lonnie Hubbard, a pharmacist, was convicted of operating an illegal "pill mill" and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The government confiscated his assets, including over $400,000 from his individual retirement account (IRA), as part of the criminal forfeiture. The IRS later claimed that this seizure constituted taxable income for Hubbard, resulting in a tax deficiency notice for over $180,000 in taxes and penalties.The United States Tax Court agreed with the IRS, ruling that the transfer of the IRA funds to the IRS was a taxable event for Hubbard. The court held that the funds qualified as Hubbard's income because they discharged an obligation he owed. Consequently, the court ordered Hubbard to pay the taxes and penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the Tax Court's decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the forfeiture order granted the IRS ownership of the IRA, meaning the IRS, not Hubbard, was the payee or distributee of the funds. The court concluded that the withdrawal of the IRA funds by the IRS did not constitute taxable income for Hubbard, as he no longer owned or controlled the IRA at the time of the withdrawal. The court emphasized that the tax code requires the payee or distributee of withdrawn IRA funds to pay the taxes, and in this case, the IRS was the payee or distributee. Therefore, Hubbard was not liable for the taxes on the forfeited IRA funds. The court reversed the Tax Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hubbard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

Paula S. Linden applied for Social Security benefits online in September 2014 at the age of 62, which was before her full retirement age of 66. As a result, she received smaller monthly payments than she would have if she had waited until 66. Linden claimed that she applied early based on misinformation from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which allegedly told her that she would receive the same benefits as if she had applied at 66. She sought to have her benefits recalculated as if she had applied at 66.The SSA denied her request, both initially and upon reconsideration. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) also ruled against her, stating that the statutory provision she cited, 42 U.S.C. § 402(j)(5), only applied to individuals who failed to apply for benefits due to misinformation. The ALJ also found insufficient evidence that Linden received misinformation from the SSA. The Appeals Council denied her request for review. Linden then filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which granted summary judgment in favor of the SSA and denied Linden’s motion for summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the plain text of 42 U.S.C. § 402(j)(5) precluded Linden’s recovery because the statute only applies to individuals who failed to apply for benefits due to misinformation. Since Linden did apply for benefits, she did not meet the statutory requirement. The court also found that the SSA’s regulations supported this interpretation. Additionally, the court noted that even if there was misinformation, it would not change the outcome because Linden did not fail to apply for benefits. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Linden v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

Gina Burt filed a lawsuit against Playtika, Ltd. and Playtika Holding Corporation in Tennessee state court, seeking to recover alleged gambling losses incurred by Tennessee residents who played Playtika’s online games. Burt's claim was based on Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-19-105, which allows recovery of gambling losses. Playtika removed the case to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and traditional diversity jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee remanded the case to state court. The district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because Burt’s suit was not a “class action” under CAFA, and the losses of the Tennessee players could not be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement for traditional diversity jurisdiction. Playtika appealed the remand order under CAFA’s expedited removal appeal provision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s remand order. The appellate court held that Burt lacked Article III standing to proceed in federal court because she did not allege that she personally suffered any gambling loss. The court found that Burt’s claim to recover losses on behalf of other Tennessee residents did not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing. Additionally, the court rejected Burt’s argument that she had standing under a qui tam theory, concluding that Tennessee Code Ann. § 29-19-105 is not a qui tam statute. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court. View "Burt v. Playtika, Ltd." on Justia Law

In 1979, Karu Gene White, along with two accomplices, committed a brutal home invasion and murder of three elderly individuals in Kentucky. White, who had known the victims, planned the crime to steal money they had saved. The victims were beaten to death with a crowbar and other weapons. White was subsequently arrested and charged with burglary, robbery, and capital murder.At trial, White's defense initially focused on an alibi, but this strategy collapsed when one of his accomplices agreed to testify against him in exchange for immunity. White's counsel then pursued an insanity defense, presenting evidence of White's abusive and traumatic childhood. Despite this, the jury found White guilty on all counts and recommended the death penalty, which the trial judge imposed.White appealed his conviction and sentence, but the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. White then sought post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence. The Kentucky Supreme Court ultimately rejected this claim, finding that counsel's performance was reasonable and that additional mitigating evidence would not have changed the jury's decision.White filed for federal habeas relief, which was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The court found that counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence were reasonable and that the Kentucky Supreme Court's application of Strickland v. Washington was not unreasonable. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that White's counsel's performance was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance and that there was no substantial likelihood that additional mitigating evidence would have changed the jury's recommendation for the death penalty. View "White v. Plappert" on Justia Law

Bradley Patton was arrested in Rutherford County, Tennessee, and charged with drug and firearm offenses. He posted bail multiple times, but his bail was eventually increased to $126,000. Under local rules, because his bail exceeded $75,000, he had to prove in a hearing that the bail money was not derived from criminal activities. Patton filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court, claiming that this local rule violated his due-process and Eighth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed Patton's claims, ruling that they were moot because he had been released from pretrial custody and there was no ongoing harm. The court also found that Patton could not rely on the putative class's standing to preserve his claims and rejected his argument that the claims were capable of repetition yet evading review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and held that Patton's claims fell within the "inherently transitory" exception to mootness for class-action claims. The court noted that pretrial detention is inherently temporary and that other class members would likely suffer the same injury. The court also found that the district court's decision to reserve the deadline for filing a motion for class certification meant that Patton should not be penalized for not filing such a motion. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Patton v. Fitzhugh" on Justia Law