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

In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in New Hampshire arrested six aliens who had prior criminal convictions or arrests. The arrests were part of a nationwide enforcement program. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, requested the names and addresses of the six individuals arrested in New Hampshire. The ICE provided the Union Leader with I-213 forms from which the aliens’ names, addresses, and other personal information had been redacted. The Union Leader subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint to compel disclosure of the arrestees’ names and addresses. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ICE, concluding that FOIA exempted the requested information from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of the arrestees’ privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the arrestees’ privacy interests, and therefore, the withheld information subject to this appeal was not exempt from disclosure. Remanded. View "Union Leader Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. " on Justia Law

In 2010, Plaintiff, then fifty-eight years old, applied for a job with Defendant. Defendant extended a written offer of employment, which Plaintiff accepted, but before Plaintiff started on the job, Defendant rescinded the offer. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging, among other claims, that the rescission of the employment offer was a by-product of age discrimination. Defendant removed the case to the federal district court. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s attorneys blundered time and again, which led to the district court issuing an order for Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. After the district court received no response from Plaintiff, it dismissed the case. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) asking the court to set aside the judgment due to the neglect of one of Plaintiff’s attorneys. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, given Plaintiff’s persistent pattern of noncompliance, the district court’s refusal to set aside the order of dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. View "Rivera-Velazquez v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2011, the then-Governor of Puerto Rico appointed Plaintiff to the position of Advocate for Persons with Disabilities. In 2013, new legislation established an Office of the Ombudsman for Personal with Disabilities. Plaintiff was subsequently informed that an Ombudsman had been appointed and that his position had been abolished by legislative act. Plaintiff sued the Governor and other officials for attempting to oust him from his job as Advocate, claiming that it was unconstitutional for Puerto Rico to abolish the Advocate position without an individualized hearing. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order, concluding that the court erred in finding that Plaintiff had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits where there was no viable claim that the abolition of the Advocate Office independently violated some constitutional proscription. View "Diaz-Carrasquillo v. Garcia-Padilla" on Justia Law

Marilyn Davidson, an intellectually disabled individual, was in the care of the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services (DDS) most of her life. In 1985, Marilyn was transferred to the Fernald Developmental Center, an intermediate care facility (ICF). In 2003, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to close Fernald. DDS planned to transfer Marilyn to the Wrentham Developmental Center, another ICF. Plaintiffs, Marilyn’s guardians, filed a complaint in the federal district court, alleging that Marilyn’s transfer violated the federal Medicaid statute and various implementing regulations. Plaintiffs also sought a motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the injunction and held that the statutory and regulatory provisions cited in the complaint did not create a private right of action. Marilyn was subsequently transferred to Wrentham, and Fernald was closed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, holding (1) Plaintiffs’ claim for damages was barred by the Commonwealth’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for damages in federal court; and (2) Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. View "Davidson v. Howe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s employment with Employer was terminated due to what Plaintiff alleged was disability discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint against Employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but did not file a civil action against Employer within ninety days after he received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff filed a new administrative charge against Employer two months after the first right-to-sue letter issued adding a second charge for retaliation. Less than a month after the transmittal of the second right-to-sue letter, Plaintiff sued Employer and other defendants in federal district court for discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court dismissed both federal claims on the grounds that they were time barred, as (1) the discrimination claim was not brought within ninety days of Plaintiff’s receipt of the first right-to-sue letter, and (2) the retaliation claim had been filed too late with the EEOC. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing both charges due to Plaintiff’s failure to meet applicable time limits. View "Rivera-Diaz v. Humana Health Plans of P.R." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possessing counterfeit obligations of the United States and sentenced to fifty-one months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the truck Appellant was driving when he was initially stopped by law enforcement officers and from the seizure of money in Appellant’s wallet; (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for acquittal; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Appellant. View "United States v. Almeida, III" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the decade-long litigation regarding the regulation of Puerto Rico’s milk industry. The district court approved a comprehensive Settlement Agreement reached by the original parties: the government defendants, including the Office of the Milk Industry Regulatory Administration for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Spanish acronym “ORIL”), and the plaintiff milk processors, Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. and Suiza Dairy, Inc. After the district court approved of the Agreement, ORIL filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, challenging the portion of the district court order opining that Puerto Rico had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by entering into the Agreement. The district court denied ORIL’s motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) held that the language at issue was merely a statement of dicta and not a judgment, and consistent with this construction, the district court was strongly encouraged to strike the statement; and (2) otherwise dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. View "Vaqueria Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Comas-Pagan" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned the decade-long litigation regarding the regulation of Puerto Rico’s milk industry. Intervenor Puerto Rico Dairy Farmers Association (“PRDFA”) appealed the district court’s approval of a comprehensive Settlement Agreement (“the Agreement”) reached by the original parties, including government defendants and plaintiff milk processors, arguing that the district court did not grant it a fair opportunity to be heard on its objections to the Agreement and erred in its approval of the Agreement. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) PRDFA’s procedural rights as an objecting intervenor were not violated where it had an adequate hearing to air its grievances and where the district court held that PRDFA remained free to challenge the constitutionality of the Agreement as implemented in its still-pending companion case; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving of the Agreement. View "P.R. Dairy Farmers Ass'n v. Comas-Pagan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a charge of gender discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the Municipality of Carolina discriminated against her because of her gender by refusing to hire her as a firefighter. The EEOC concluded that Carolina had discriminated against Plaintiff in its hiring process. Carolina subsequently hired Plaintiff as a firefighter. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued the Municipality and Mayor of Carolina, asserting claims for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as pendent state law claims, based on Defendants’ pre- and post-hire conduct. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff waived her right to the review of her claims against the Mayor and her post-hire discrimination claims; and (2) the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s pre-hire discrimination claims and post-hire retaliation claims against Carolina, as the claims asserted met the plausibility standard. View "Garayalde-Rijos v. Municipality of Carolina" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of the crime of possession of a firearm by a felon. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence of a pistol found in his possession by state law enforcement authorities because it was obtained pursuant to an invalidated arrest warrant and in violation of his Miranda rights. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, pursuant to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule articulated most recently in Herring v. United States, the evidence did not warrant exclusion because the officers acted in good faith and relied on a warrant that was facially valid at the time they detained Defendant. View "United States v. Echevarria-Rios" on Justia Law