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

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court rejecting Defendant's request for a Franks hearing before Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant a Franks hearing.Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and one count of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to search warrants and sought a Franks hearing on the basis of two alleged material omissions from the warrant affidavit. The district court denied both Defendant's Franks motion and his motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling that Defendant had failed to make the threshold showing necessary to obtain a Franks hearing. View "United States v. Leonard" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the federal convictions challenged on appeal by the two defendants in this case - Noel de Leon-De la Rosa and Juan Batista Johnson-Debel - holding that vacatur was required of Defendants' challenged convictions for different reasons.Defendants were both convicted of destruction of a controlleded substance while on a vessel and conspiracy to destroy a controlled substance while on a vessel (counts five and six). The First Circuit vacated Defendants' of counts five and six, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) the admission of Johnson's statement in the defendants' joint trial violated De Leon's rights under the Confrontation Clause to the Federal Constitution; and (3) as to Johnson's convictions, the district court constructively amended the indictment through its instructions to the jury. View "United States v. De Leon-De la Rosa" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to vacate her federal conviction and sentence on the grounds that her appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), for failing to raise a claim on direct appeal under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that the district court erred.Defendant and her co-defendants were convicted of various drug-trafficking offenses. In their direct appeals, Defendant's co-defendants successfully argued that the government's failure to produce several clearly relevant documents that plainly called into question the credibility of the government's key witnesses against Defendant and her co-defendants violated their due process rights under Brady. The First Circuit vacated the co-defendants' convictions and remanded for a new trial. Because Defendant did not raise the Brady violation on her simultaneous appeal, she was denied relief. Thereafter, Defendant brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) Defendant established prejudice under Strickland; and (2) the failure to raise the Brady claim was the result of deficient performance by appellate counsel. View "Flores-Rivera v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court approving an amended settlement agreement in this landmark Title IX case brought by a group of women student-athletes against Brown University claiming gender discrimination with respect to the funding and operation of a variety of varsity athletic programs, holding that there was no error.After a bench trial, the district court found that Brown had violated Title IX. After the First Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings, the parties consummated a settlement, which remained in effect for more than two decades. In 2020, Brown unilaterally decided to eliminate certain varsity sports and to upgrade sailing to varsity status, open to men and women. The parties then revisited the matters embodied in the court-approved settlement and jointly moved for approval of a revised settlement. The district court approved the amended settlement agreement. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that the amended settlement agreement was fair and adequate. View "Cohen v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the criminal proceedings against him, holding that Appellant was statutorily barred under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) from bringing a collateral attack in his criminal proceeding.Defendant was charged with violating 8 U.S.C. 1326, which makes it a felony to unlawfully enter the United States while an order of removal is outstanding. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against him, arguing that the government may not use his prior removal order to prove the "outstanding order of removal" element of the crime. Defendant thus sought to dismiss his indictment based on a due process-based collateral attack on the order of removal, arguing that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first argument had already been rejected by this Court since the district's ruling; and (2) because the removal proceeding was not fundamentally unfair Defendant did not satisfy the conditions under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) that would permit him to collaterally attack his prior removal. View "United States v. Castillo-Martinez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court denying the Commission of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints against her, holding that Plaintiffs' allegations of error were without merit.Plaintiffs were (1) a class of individuals who claimed to have been held against their will without due process on the basis of a certification of their need for emergency mental health treatment, and (2) a group of hospitals who claimed to have been forced to retain persons certified to be in need of such treatment. The Commissioner moved to dismiss the claims based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and Plaintiffs' asserted lack of standing. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no merit to the Commissioner's challenges to the district court's standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity rulings. View "Doe v. Shibinette" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of three drug trafficking offenses after law enforcement officers discovered cocaine and heroin inside of his vehicle, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the officers stopped his vehicle without reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the drugs found inside of the vehicle were inadmissible as evidence. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant when they conducted the vehicle containment in this case. View "United States v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellants' request for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of a regulation promulgated by Maine's Center for Disease Control requiring all workers in licensed healthcare facilities to be vaccinated against COVID-19, holding that the district court did not err.Under Maine law, a healthcare worker may claim an exemption from the vaccination requirement only if a medical practitioner certifies that vaccination "may be medically inadvisable." Appellants - several Maine healthcare workers and a healthcare provider - brought this action alleging that the vaccination requirement violated their rights under 42 U.S.C. 1985 and the Free Exercise Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court denied Appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that Appellants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims. View "Does v. Mills" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims alleging that his termination violated 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, holding that there was no merit to Plaintiff's challenges on appeal.On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant on his Title VII retaliation claim, its dismissal of Plaintiff's Title VII hostile work environment claims for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and its denial of Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint to add a claim of disability discrimination. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the retaliation claim, its dismissal of the hostile work environment claim, and its denial of Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint. View "Jenkins v. Housing Court Department" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed this appeal from the district court's denial of Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, holding that Plaintiff's claims were moot.During the initial stages of COVID-19 vaccine distribution, the State of New Hampshire implemented a plan to allocate its supply. The overall plan earmarked up to ten percent of vaccines to an "equity plan" to reach certain vulnerable individuals. Before he obtained a vaccine appointment, Plaintiff sued to challenge the equity plan, arguing that the plan illegally discriminated on the basis of race. The district court denied Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction, and Plaintiff appealed. The First Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that where Plaintiff no longer had any stake in how New Hampshire allocates its abundant supply of vaccines, his request for a preliminary injunction was moot. View "Pietrangelo v. Sununu" on Justia Law