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

Defendant was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce. Defendant moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the officers who frisked him had no reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months in prison after applying a six-level sentence enhancement based on a finding that Defendant’s prior Massachusetts conviction for assault and battery constituted a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the denial of Defendant’s suppression motion but vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the search of Defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion; but (2) Defendant’s prior Massachusetts conviction did not constitute a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore, the district court improperly calculated Defendant’s base offense level. Remanded.View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that police officers used excessive force when they shot and killed her sixteen-year-old son (Anthony). The district court granted the police officers' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. The officers responded to an activated burglar alarm at a liquor store, were involved in a car chase with Anthony, and when one of the officers exited his vehicle, Anthony drove towards him. The shots were fired at Anthony when he was driving towards one of the officers. The court concluded that a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have believed that Anthony posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officer when the officer fired the shots. In any event, the officers were entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity because they did not violate clearly established law. Plaintiff failed to point to any case that clearly establishes the unconstitutionality of using deadly force to end a car chase that threatened the physical safety of the officers and others in the area. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "McGrath v. Tavares, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations concerning the rescission of a bid award for a potential, but unexecuted, insurance brokerage contract with the Puerto Rico government. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim where he had no constitutionally protected property interest in the initial bid award; reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment claim for political discrimination where there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse action; and remanded for further proceedings.View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales" on Justia Law

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