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

The First Circuit denied Plaintiff's motion for an injunction preventing the implementation of a plan promulgated by the Boston Public Schools for admitting students to Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and John D. O'Bryant School of Mathematics and Science for the 2021-2022 school year, holding that Plaintiff did not show it was not entitled to the injunction.Plaintiff, a corporation acting on behalf of fourteen parents and children residing in Boston, asserted that the 2021-2022 admissions plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, 5. The district court entered judgment in Defendants' favor. Plaintiff appealed and moved for an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) enjoining Defendants from implementing the plan during the pendency of this appeal. The First Circuit denied the motion, holding that Plaintiff failed to show a strong likelihood that it would prevail on the merits. View "Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. School Committee of City of Boston" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (BAP) affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court finding that Debtor defaulted on his obligation and refusing to grant him a discharge, holding that Debtor's assignments of error were unavailing.Debtor filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the District of Massachusetts. The case was subsequently converted to a Chapter 7 case. After Debtor failed to file any of the documents mandated by court orders the court entered a further order requiring Debtor to file the overdue documents by a certain date. Debtor did not heed the order. After a show cause hearing, the bankruptcy court denied Debtor a discharge and dismissed his petition for failing to ignore the court's orders. The BAP affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Debtor received the constitutional protections to which he was entitled and that, due to Debtor's conduct, the bankruptcy court's denial of a discharge was within its discretion. View "Francis v. Desmond" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants - the City of Framingham and Chief of the Framingham Police Department - in this Garcetti speech-retaliation and Massachusetts Whistleblower Act action brought by Plaintiff, an FPD detective, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit challenging allegedly retaliatory employment actions, including a five-day suspension and his being put on paid administrative leave during an investigation. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Defendants met their burden to show that the adverse employment decisions would have occurred despite Plaintiff's protected speech. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants met their burden to prove an independent non-retaliatory basis for Plaintiff's discipline. View "Gutwill v. City of Framingham" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted in Massachusetts of murder in the first degree. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that testimony was erroneously introduced at trial that he had given to a grand jury without being advised of his privilege against self-incrimination. Appellant presented this same argument in his challenge to his conviction on appeal and in his appeal of the denial of his motion for a new trial, all without success. The district court denied Appellant's habeas petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of his grand jury testimony. View "Woods v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute various controlled substance and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant sought to suppress drug evidence and a firearm seized pursuant to a search warrant for the car he was driving when he was arrested on an outstanding federal warrant. In his motion, Defendant argued that the search warrant for the car was invalid because it was issued based on an unlawful inventory search. The First Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that (1) the officers had an objectively reasonable non-investigatory purpose; and (2) the inventory search of the car was unlawful. View "United States v. Sylvester" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Novo Nordisk Inc. and dismissing Plaintiffs' age discrimination claims, holding that the district court did not err.During a global reorganization, Novo Nordisk terminated Plaintiffs from their jobs based in Puerto Rico and did not select Plaintiffs for post-reorganization positions. Plaintiffs brought this complaint alleging that Novo Nordisk violated Puerto Rico's statutes prohibiting age discrimination in employment and penalizing termination without just cause. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Novo Nordisk on all of Plaintiffs' claims. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that summary judgment was properly granted. View "Puig Martinez v. Novo Nordisk Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Defendant's appeal of his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and 924(a)(2), holding that the district court did not commit plain error by accepting Defendant's guilty plea and in denying his motion to suppress.Following Defendant's plea, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), under which the government must prove that the defendant knew he had the relevant status prohibiting possession. On appeal, Defendant argued (1) under Rehaif, the district court committed plain error during his plea colloquy by failing to inform him that the government was required to prove that he knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms; and (2) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the search warrant issued for Defendant's residence was supported by probable cause; and (2) the district court did not plainly err by accepting Defendant's guilty plea. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's eighteen-month sentence imposed for violating the conditions of his supervised release by committing a new crime, holding that Defendant had not suffered any prejudice from the delay in his supervised release revocation hearing.The revocation hearing concluded thirty months after the the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court to revoke supervised release and eight months after Defendant was taken into federal custody. On appeal, Defendant argued that his revocation hearing was unreasonably delayed in violation of his rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 and the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant's claim failed on the prejudice prong. View "United States v. Torres-Santana" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendants - Rolando Millan-Machuca, Roberto Casado-Berrios, Miguel Rivera-Calcano, and Giordano Santana-Meledez - of racketeering and drug trafficking conspiracies, holding that Defendants' claims on appeal were unavailing.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) there was no merit to Defendants' claims of error in the admission of certain evidence; (3) Defendants' sentences were reasonable; and (4) Rivera-Calcano's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing is dismissed without prejudice. View "United States v. Millan-Machuca" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court granting judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this discrimination and retaliation action, holding that Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in part.Plaintiff filed suit against Abbott Laboratories alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-34, Puerto Rico Law 100 and Puerto Rico Law 155. A jury found for Plaintiff and awarded $4 million for emotional distress and $250,000 for back pay. The district court entered judgment against Abbott on all counts but reduced the damages to just over $500,000. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding (1) Abbott was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's ADEA claims and her corresponding claims under Law 100 and Law 115; but (2) Abbott failed to preserve its challenge to a separate finding that Abbott retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting to the State Insurance Fund. View "Gonzalez-Bermudez v. Abbott Laboratories P.R. Inc." on Justia Law