Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim involving the failure to challenge the quantity of methamphetamine attributed to petitioner. Because there was nothing in the trial record to contradict petitioner's allegations, at this stage of the proceedings, the court must accept that unusable liquids were counted in calculating the drug quantities that determined his mandatory minimum sentence and his advisory guidelines base offense level. The court also must accept that the liquids could not have produced any more than 2.4 grams of methamphetamine. The court held that counsel's failure to challenge the weight calculations amounted to deficient performance, particularly because the drug quantities were the basis of petitioner's mandatory minimum sentence and higher guidelines range. Furthermore, counsel's deficient performance prejudiced petitioner. View "Griffith v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against five ADOC officials. Plaintiff alleged that the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (ASORCNA) and the ADOC classification manual violated his procedural due process, substantive due process, and ex post facto rights. The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the procedural due process claim because he was convicted of a crime that constituted a sex offense under Alabama law at the time of his conviction and thus was not entitled to any additional process before being classified as a sex offender by prison officials. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to raise a cognizable substantive due process claim and ex post facto claim. View "Waldman v. Alabama Prison Commissioner" on Justia Law

The money that a homosexual man paid to father children through in vitro fertilization—and in particular, to identify, retain, compensate, and care for the women who served as an egg donor and a gestational surrogate—was not spent "for the purpose of affecting" his body's reproductive "function" within the meaning of I.R.C. 213. In this case, the Eleventh Circuit held that it was constrained by I.R.C. 213's plain language where taxpayer's own function within the human reproductive process was to produce and provide healthy sperm, and because taxpayer was and remained capable of performing that function without the aid of IVF-related treatments, those treatments did not affect any function of his body and did not qualify as deductible "medical care" within the meaning of Section 213(a). The court also held that the IRS's disallowance of taxpayer's claimed deduction neither violated any fundamental right nor discriminated on the basis of any suspect (or quasi-suspect) characteristic. View "Morrissey v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief in a capital case where petitioner was convicted of three murders. The court held that the Florida Supreme Court's decision to exclude evidence related to an alternative perpetrator was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established law and the district court correctly denied relief. In this case, petitioner sought to admit into evidence testimony from a death row inmate who claimed to have received and then destroyed a letter in which the lynchpin witness who put him on death row allegedly confessed to the triple homicide petitioner was accused of. The court explained that it was not hard to understand why the trial court was skeptical of this story. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of trial. View "Pittman v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his 210-month sentence, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing pursuant to Johnson v. United States. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the portion of the district court's judgment determining that petitioner's section 2255 motion was untimely because it raised only a claim pursuant to Descamps v. United States. The court held, however, that the district court's conclusion that petitioner's section 2255 motion also did not assert a Johnson claim was erroneous. On the merits of the Johnson claim, the court held that petitioner failed to prove that but for the residual clause he would have received a different sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the motion. View "Beeman v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a public school teacher, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that she was denied a promotion in violation of her First Amendment right to free speech and intimate association. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the school superintendent, holding that the district court defined "clearly established law" at too high a level of generality. In this case, the case law that plaintiff relied upon was not particularized to the facts of the case, but rather it merely set out First Amendment principles at a high level of generality, it was not "apparent" that passing her over for promotion based on things her father said would violate her constitutional rights. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to grant the superintendent summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to the section 1983 claims against him. View "Gaines v. Wardynski" on Justia Law

The plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) covers discrimination against breastfeeding mothers. Plaintiff filed suit against the police department under the PDA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after her reassignment and constructive discharge. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and held that there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination when plaintiff was reassigned from the narcotics task force to the patrol division; the denial of accommodations for a breastfeeding employee violated the PDA when it amounted to a constructive discharge; a reasonable person in plaintiff's position would have felt compelled to resign; and the City's remaining arguments were unavailing. View "Hicks v. Tuscaloosa, Alabama" on Justia Law

This appeal involved four of a group of twelve cases filed by death row inmates challenging the constitutionality of the State's lethal injection protocol. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of the four cases, holding that the ADOC's law-of-the-case argument failed. The court also held that the complaint stated a claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. In this case, the complaint alleged that if midazolam fails to render the inmates insensate, the severe pain caused by the second and third drugs would represent a "substantial risk of serious harm," and each of the inmate's three proposed alternatives would be obtainable by the ADOC and would completely eliminate the risk of suffocation and pain the second and third drugs create. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "West v. Commissioner, Alabama DOC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, death row inmates, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Alabama's execution protocol. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the ADOC and held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment; plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims were not barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine; and in regard to the ADOC's limitations argument, because it was not raised and the district court did not consider it, the court could not address it in the absence of a factual determination as to whether the substitution of midazolam for pentobarbital constituted a substantial change to Alabama's execution protocol. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Grayson v. Warden, ADOC" on Justia Law

The City challenged the district court's order granting Retailers' renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, and denying the City's motions for clarification and for reconsideration. The preliminary injunction enjoined the enforcement of two City ordinances that restrict commercial solicitation and handbilling in sections of five streets in the Historic Art Deco District. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not err in finding that Retailers were likely to succeed on the merits with respect to Section 74-1, the anti-solicitation ordinance, because the record suggested that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored–specifically that the City failed to consider numerous and obvious less-burdensome alternatives. The court also held that the district court correctly concluded that Retailers showed a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that Section 46-92, the anti-handbilling ordinance, was overbroad. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction. View "FF Cosmetics FL, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach" on Justia Law