Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Chen, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1996. In 1997, the INS instituted removal, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Chen sought political asylum and withholding of deportation under the Convention Against Torture based on religion and political opinion. An IJ found his testimony incredible and denied the application, but, noting Chen's young age and crimeless record, granted voluntary departure. Counsel withdrew Chen's appeal, stating that Chen had returned to China. Chen was actually living in the U.S., had married and was starting a family, which grew to include three children. Chen later asserted that he thought the case had been resolved in his favor and was unaware of what transpired because his lawyer had died. In 2010, Chen was apprehended and sought to reopen his removal proceedings with the BIA. The BIA denied the motion as untimely. He filed a second motion, alleging changed country conditions and that the BIA, in formulating its decision, improperly considered a 2007 Country Profile. The BIA denied the motion, finding Chen's evidence inadequate to show that he will be persecuted or tortured in China on the basis of his religion. The First Circuit denied review. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

In August 2004, MMC began to look into filing a tax refund claim for reimbursement of FICA made on behalf of its medical residents in 2001. In March 2005, MMC discussed the matter with its accountants. On April 15, 2005, the day the claim was due, MMC completed the form; it has no evidence that it followed its standard practice and took the form to the post office. The IRS asserts that it has no record of receiving the claim. In December 2009, MMC filed a refund suit. The government refused to respond to discovery requests relating to the 2001 claim, arguing that the claim was not timely filed. The district court entered judgment for the government. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that MMC did not make an adequate threshold showing that its refund claim was timely filed, and thus the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. View "ME Med. Ctr. v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Orthodox Jew, is serving a life sentence for murder without the possibility of parole, sought a transfer back to the prison in which he was previously held. Before the transfer, he regularly participated in Jewish religious activities, followed dietary restrictions, and met individually with a visiting rabbi. After the transfer to a prison in a less-populated area, the prison chaplain made efforts, largely fruitless, to provide Jewish services. Only one other practicing Jewish inmate was housed at the facility. The district court denied a preliminary injunction under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. The First Circuit affirmed. Petitioner's disadvantages depend importantly on proximate actions and decisions not attributable to the government and are too attenuated from the transfer decision to be considered government imposed burdens under RLUIPA. He was not transferred for the purpose of restricting his religious opportunities or in retaliation for the exercise of his First Amendment rights.View "Bader v. Wrenn" on Justia Law

Companion was authorized to license space in Wal-Mart stores to companies that sell durable medical equipment and entered into licensing agreements with defendants. In 2007, defendants shut down operations. Companion sued. Problems arose during discovery, including defense counsel motions to withdraw, allegations of inadequate responses to discovery requests, objections to the scope of discovery, refusal to attend depositions, motions to compel, multiple extensions, and claims of obstruction. After three years, the district judge imposed a default as to all counts, based on discovery violations by the defendants. The court eventually lifted the default except as to Companion's veil piercing claim, allowing the substantive claims to go to trial. A jury found for Companion and awarded more than $1 million in damages. Defendants, personally liable as a result of the default, appealed. The First Circuit vacated the default and remanded, "because the district court imposed such a severe sanction based on a very limited slice of the relevant facts." View "Companion Health Servs, v. Majors Mobility, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police department employee, made claims of sexual harassment and emotional abuse. The district court issued a scheduling order, closing discovery as of November 18, 2010. When defense counsel encountered an emergency, the court reset the date to January 28, 2011. In November, defendants served plaintiffs with interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The court extended discovery closure date to February 28, 2011. On February 24, plaintiffs moved to extend this deadline by 30 days, claiming that their lawyer had no time to devote to their case. The court extended the discovery closure date to March 25, but stated that plaintiffs must provide answers to outstanding interrogatories and requests for production of documents no later than February 28 and that failure to answer by that date would result in dismissal, with prejudice. On March 1, defendants informed the court that plaintiffs had not complied. The court extended the deadline by 10 days. On March 16, defendants informed the court that the interrogatories remained unanswered and that the documents had not been produced. The next day the court dismissed the action with prejudice. The First Circuit affirmed. View "Mulero-Abreu v. PR Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Plaintiff began working for the police department in 1986. Although he was a member of NPP, one of Puerto Rico's two major political parties, he received promotions while NPP's main rival, PDP, dominated the executive branch. In 2008, he was promoted to the rank of Commander. His career path became rocky when his party, NPP, won the 2008 general election. New leadership eliminated unspecified duties, retrieved his official cellphone and departmental car, evicted him from his office, and reassigned him to mundane tasks that he viewed as beneath the dignity of his rank. He was not discharged nor stripped of rank, and he did not allege that his compensation was diminished. The district court dismissed his suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The First Circuit affirmed, finding no plausible claim of political discrimination. Plaintiff did not allege deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.View "Rojas-Velazquez v. Figueroa-Sancha" on Justia Law

OSHA fined the employer, a public works contractor, $33,700 for violations of safety regulations relating to the excavation of a trench. The “cave-in” provision, 29 C.F.R. 1926.652(a)(1) requires protective measures, such as shoring or trench boxes, for excavations at least five feet deep and in potentially unstable soil; other rules require inspections by a competent person, and specific egress measures, 29 C.F.R. 1926.650-652. An ALJ confirmed the fine and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission upheld the decision. The First Circuit denied review. An employer can be charged with constructive knowledge of a safety violation that supervisory employees know or should reasonably know about. The employer did not provide any documentary evidence of safety inspections. Substantial evidence supported the decision. View "P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin." on Justia Law

After a jury convicted defendant as a felon in possession of a firearm, the trial judge learned that a pocket-sized New Testament Bible was found in the jury deliberation room. The judge notified defense counsel, who immediately moved for a new trial, arguing violation of the Sixth Amendment rights to a trial before an impartial jury and to confront witnesses. The judge rejected a request to recall each juror for individual voir dire. The judge denied a second motion for a new trial, arguing that the prosecutor made improper comments during closing and rebuttal arguments. The First Circuit affirmed, first rejecting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant waived his Confrontation Clause argument. The district court’s decision to question only the foreman about whether the Bible influenced deliberations was within its discretion. Even if the prosecutor’s statements about defendant’s failure to explain himself were improper, they were not prejudicial in light of their brevity, the amount of evidence of guilt, and a curative instruction.View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff owned land near lots intended for development. The Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority planned to condemn most of plaintiff's land, in aid of the development. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the condemnation proceeding was rejected; he filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the developer, PRHTA, and PRHTA employees, alleging conspiracy to deprive him of his property without just compensation or due process and torts claims under commonwealth law. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants and awarded $92,149 in attorney fees. The First Circuit vacated the fee award. Puerto Rican law provides process to get compensation for property takings by the government. Plaintiff did not take advantage of that process. Those were the only facts that needed to be shown for the dismissal, so the award was not justified. View "Efron v. Mora Dev. Corp." on Justia Law

An employee crashed a Verizon truck and admitted to snorting heroin earlier that day. When his supervisor visited his home to have paperwork completed, the encounter became hostile. Verizon fired him. He filed a Massachusetts workers' compensation claim, based on injuries from the accident and alleged psychological harm based on-the-job harassment by the supervisor before the accident and the supervisor's visit to the house. An ALJ rejected the claims and the review board affirmed. A state court affirmed. Employee filed a second workers' compensation claim pertaining solely to the incident at the house. The claim was rejected by the ALJ as res judicata; the board and court affirmed, with an award of double costs against the employee for frivolous appeal. Employee then filed suit against Verizon and the supervisor, charging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and trespass. The court dismissed, based on preemption provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), and the exclusivity provision of the Compensation Act, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 152, 24. The court ordered plaintiff's attorney to pay $34,908.12 to reflect only defendants’ attorney fees incurred after the court's warning about the lawsuit's viability. The First Circuit affirmed. View "McCarty v. Verizon New England Inc." on Justia Law