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

Michael Dunn worked for Boston University (BU) from 1992 until 2010, at which time Dunn’s job was allegedly eliminated due to restructuring. Dunn brought suit against BU in Massachusetts superior court, claiming age discrimination in violation of both state and federal law. BU removed the case to federal district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BU, concluding that Dunn had not made out a prima facie case that he was laid off because of his age. The First Circuit affirmed without ruling on the sufficiency of Dunn’s prima facie showing, holding that, even assuming that Dunn made a prima facie showing of age discrimination, Dunn failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether BU’s stated reasons for discharging him were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.View "Dunn v. Trs. of Boston Univ." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on three counts of distributing cocaine base. During trial, the court allowed testimony from a cooperating witness who purchased cocaine base from Defendant on three occasions, plus video and audiotapes of those transactions. The First Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not commit plain error in allowing the jury to review previously admitted audiotapes and video in the courtroom and in the presence of alternate jurors, the court, and the parties; (2) the district court did not commit plain error in failing to instruct the jury that it could not draw negative inferences from the fact that law enforcement officers possessed photographic images of Defendant; and (3) Defendant’s sentencing as a career offender did not violate the Sixth Amendment prohibition against judicial fact finding.View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

A civilian was shot without justification by an on-duty police officer, Javier Pagan-Cruz. Plaintiffs, the victim’s family, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Pagan, his two on-scene colleagues, and five supervisors for violating the victim’s Fourth Amendment rights by causing his wrongful death. The supervisory defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to the supervisory defendants on the remaining claims against them. After a trial, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs against the remaining defendants. The First Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Plaintiffs’ supervisory liability claims against each of the supervisory defendants, holding that these defendants were not liable in this case under section 1983.View "Ramirez-Lluveras v. Rivera-Merced" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of distributing cocaine. On appeal, Appellant argued that two instances of prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor erred during closing argument rebuttal by offering “overzealous and inappropriate” statements regarding the credibility of the government’s witnesses, thus improperly vouching for the prosecution’s investigation and witnesses; (2) the prosecutor erred during closing arguments by playing an audio recording for the jury that had not been entered into evidence; but (3) neither of the errors affected Appellant’s conviction.View "United States v. Rojas" on Justia Law

The Maine State Prison has a longstanding practice of issuing footlockers with padlocks to most inmates. Appellants, inmates in the Prison, were each seriously injured in assaults by other inmates who used prison-issued padlocks as weapons. Appellants filed complaints in federal district court alleging that the failure of Appellees, officials in the Maine Department of Corrections, to take adequate measures to protect inmates from padlock assaults violated Appellants’ Eighth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed the complaints on summary judgment, concluding that there existed no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether providing inmates with padlocks subjected Appellants to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the small number of assaults involving the use of prison-issued padlocks, without more, was not sufficient to sustain the conclusion that providing the padlocks to inmates rose to the level of constitutional violation.View "Lakin v. Barnhart" on Justia Law

In 2011, agents intercepted a call between James Brichetto and a potential customer, Michael Leavitt, in which Leavitt sought to purchase approximately 100 oxycodone pills. Brichetto asked whether Leavitt was with someone else, and Leavitt responded affirmatively. As the conversation wound down, Brichetto and Leavitt agreed to meet in the parking lot of a Walmart store in Scarborough, Maine. Defendant Paul Arnott was a passenger in Leavitt's car. The issues this case presented for the First Circuit's review centered on a court order issued in November 2011, which authorized a wiretap on a cellular telephone in the possession of Brichetto (a suspected drug dealer). Agents pulled Leavitt's car over, and asked the occupants to get out. Agents searched the car and found drugs in the compartment. Defendant would ultimately be arrested on drug charges. After the district court denied his motion for suppression, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to challenge the suppression ruling. Following the imposition of sentence, defendant acted upon this reservation and appealed. Finding no reversible error, the First Circuit affirmed. View "US v. Arnott" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Maine Legislature made certain amendments to Maine’s public employee retirement system. In general, the retired Maine employees stood to be paid significantly less cost-of-living adjustments as a result of the amendments. Plaintiffs - retired Maine employees, public school teachers, and members of the Maine Association of Retirees and the Maine State Employees Association - filed suit, arguing that the amendments violated the Contract Clause and Taking Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the 2011 amendments did not violate the Contract Clause. View "Me. Ass’n of Retirees v. Bd. of Trustees" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce, and felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant subsequently pleaded guilty to all counts. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte order a hearing on the issue of Appellant’s competency; (2) the district court adequately assessed whether Appellant’s plea was knowing and voluntary within the meaning of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; (3) Appellant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (4) the district court did not err in imposing a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence on the drug conspiracy count.View "United States v. Kenney" on Justia Law

Robert Snyder operated a business in a building that he owned in the city of Waltham, Massachusetts. After Snyder fired an employee who served as a member of the Waltham city council, the former employee complained to the city building department that Snyder’s use of his building violated a local land use ordinance. Code enforcement officers investigated Snyder’s use of his property and fined him under the ordinance. Snyder contested the fines in the district court, alleging that the city and five individuals violated his rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by singling him out for differential treatment for reasons unique to him. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the two defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the local government officials did not violate any clearly established federal law, and therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.View "Snyder v. Collura" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, alleging that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at stages during his criminal proceeding and that he was forced to represent himself at trial. Petitioner subsequently amended his motion to include a Brady claim. The district court concluded that the Sixth Amendment claim was time-barred, and the government conceded that the Brady claim was timely. The First Circuit refused Petitioner’s request for an expanded certificate of appealability on his Sixth Amendment claim on the grounds that it was untimely. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that his Sixth Amendment claim was timely because it was a part of a section 2255 motion that included a timely claim. The First Circuit denied the motion for reconsideration, holding (1) the period of limitation in 28 U.S.C. 2255(f) should be applied on a claim-by-claim basis; and (2) under this approach, Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim was clearly time-barred. View "Capozzi v. United States" on Justia Law