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

After discovery of previously-undisclosed evidence, plaintiff's murder conviction was vacated and he was released after more than 30 years in prison. His suit for damages, against the city and detectives, was dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed in part. Holding that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity on one count, the court noted that in 1972 it was not clearly established that Brady's no-fault disclosure obligation applied to police officers as opposed to prosecutors. They were not entitled to immunity on a claim of deliberate deception in concealing evidence and allowing false testimony. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for municipal liability.

Until 2005, when the Puerto Rico Board of Medical Examiners promulgated a first-in-the-nation regulation that limited the practice of cosmetic medicine to particular classes of medical specialists, all licensed physicians in Puerto Rico could perform cosmetic surgery. The Board enforced the regulation against a physician who did not possess the required specialty board certification. The district court disposed of challenges on the ground that the defendants enjoyed various kinds of immunity and did not reach constitutional issues. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims that the suspension of plaintiff's license amounted to a substantive due process violation and was retaliation for past testimony. The Board afforded due process protections in its hearing process.

Recording companies sought statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101, claiming willful infringement of copyrights of music recordings by using file-sharing software to download and distribute recordings without authorization. The jury found that the infringement was willful and awarded statutory damages of $22,500 for each infringed recording, an award within the statutory range of $750 to $150,000 per infringement. The judge reduced the damages by a factor of ten, reasoning that the award was excessive in violation of defendant's due process rights. The First Circuit affirmed the finding of liability, but reinstated the original damage award. The district court erred in considering the constitutional issue without first addressing defendant's motion for remittitur. The court noted a number of issues concerning application of the Copyright Act that "Congress may wish to examine."

The district court declined to enter judgment on on the pleadings, in favor of defendants, in a case under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The complaint alleged that defendants failed to provide medical services to an inmate, who had threatened suicide and engaged in self-destructive behavior, while in custody following a single-car accident.The inmate committed suicide 14 hours after release. The First Circuit reversed. The allegations went beyond the requirements of due process; there was no claim of state-created or augmented risk, and 14 hours at liberty is not reasonably compatible with any claim that normal sources of support were effectively blocked.

Petitioner, convicted of a 1984 Massachusetts murder, exhausted state appeals. After hearing new evidence that, according to a witness, another man had made self-incriminating about the murder, the district court denied habeas relief. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Petitioner did not establish prejudice.

Plaintiff was arrested for using his cell phone camera to film police officers arresting a man on the Boston Common. Charges included violation of the Massachusetts wiretap statute and two other state-law offenses, were subsequently dismissed. Plaintiff's suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, the district court denied the officers qualified immunity. The First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public place and his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause.

In April 1999, a Massachusetts jury convicted petitioner of rape, kidnapping, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and carjacking. After unsuccessful attempts at post-trial relief in state court, he filed an unsuccessful petition for habeas corpus. The district court also denied a motion by which petitioner sought to subject evidence to DNA testing. The First Circuit affirmed. The court properly denied the discovery motion, given petitioner's speculative theories and baseless allegations. The court also rejected an argument that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254, pursuant to which the district court evaluated the petition, unconstitutionally restricts review to existing Supreme Court precedent.

National Organization for Marriage challenged the constitutionality of Maine election laws (Me.Rev.Stat. title 21A sec. 1052) as overbroad under the First Amendment and so vague in its terms, particularly with respect to the phrase "for the purpose of influencing," as to violate due process. The laws govern registration of political action committees and reporting of independent expenditures. The district court upheld the law. The First Circuit affirmed, first holding that the organization had standing. The record showed that its fears were objectively reasonable and led to self-censorship. With respect to the overbreadth claim, the court rejected an argument based on the distinction between issue discussion and express advocacy, characterizing the distinction as irrelevant and applying the "exacting scrutiny" standard because the law does not prohibit, limit, or impose any onerous burdens on speech, but merely requires maintenance and disclosure of certain financial information. There is a "substantial relation" between Maine's informational interest and each of the laws at issue. The terms "promoting," "support," "opposition," "influencing," "expressly advocate" and "initiation" are sufficiently clear.

National Organization for Marriage challenged the constitutionality of Rhode Island election laws as overbroad under the First Amendment and so vague in its terms as to violate due process. The laws govern registration of political action committees, contributions to and expenditures on behalf of candidates, and reporting of independent expenditures. The organization claimed that it would refrain from certain political activities if required to register as a PAC, but would comply with independent expenditures under protest. After receiving assurances that the organization could engage in its planned speech without registering as a PAC, the district court denied a preliminary injunction, noting the minimal burden imposed by the law and the valuable governmental interest underlying it. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that the organization had not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits.

During a raid of a motel room in which he was a guest, defendant was place on the floor and handcuffed in the wake of his host's arrest on drug charges. Defendant consented to a search of his pants pocket to locate identification; the search turned up seven small bags of crack cocaine. A dozen rounds of .38-caliber ammunition were later discovered in the pocket of his jacket. After unsuccessfully moving to suppress this evidence, he entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of simple possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm after a prior felony conviction. The First Circuit affirmed. Given consent to retrieve an object from a cramped space, like a pocket, it is objectively reasonable to assume that the consent extends to the removal of items that either may constitute the object of the search and cannot be immediately identified or that obstruct further access to other items in the pocket. The consent was voluntary. The circumstances justified use of handcuffs and drawn guns. Defendant was experienced in dealing with law enforcement and showed no signs of intimidation.