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

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Defendant, the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, alleging that, in retaliation for Plaintiff's anti-regulatory stance, Defendant used his oversight powers to retaliate unlawfully against Plaintiff. The federal district court dismissed the complaint on immunity grounds. At issue before the First Circuit Court of Appeals was the scope and extent of the immunities offered to state officials, such as Defendant, whose duties encompass both prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions. The First Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that, notwithstanding Defendant's dual roles, Defendant was, with one exception, entitled to absolute immunity from Plaintiff's suit. View "Goldstein v. Galvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Pakistani native, fled Pakistan in 1993 as a result of threats against him from a subsidiary of the ruling Pakistan Mulsim League. Petitioner entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor in 1999 but remained in the country beyond the time authorized. In 2005, Petitioner appeared before the Immigration Judge (IJ), conceded removability, and applied for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. In support of his applications, Petitioner testified to the threats he received, which continued even in his absence. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted in part and denied part Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Board's withholding-of-removal decision was contrary to the evidence; and(2) the IJ and BIA's CAT rulings were supported by the record. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Javed v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were five limited partnerships that owned multifamily housing rental projects in Maine. Plaintiffs entered into housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts with the Maine State Housing Authority (MaineHousing) in order to participate in the Section 8 program. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in conjunction with state and local public housing agencies. Landlords participating in the program receive partial rent from their tenants and the remainder of the rent from the relevant public housing agency, who is, in turn, reimbursed by HUD. Payments from state and local agencies to the Section 8 landlords are adjusted periodically according to guidelines promulgated by HUD. In 2009, Plaintiffs sued MaineHousing in federal district court for breach of contract, alleging that MaineHousing had wrongfully refused to grant them certain annual increases in their Section 8 payments. MaineHousing impleaded HUD. The district court granted summary judgment for MaineHousing and HUD. The First Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that each of the housing assistance payments contracts at issue allowed MaineHousing to withhold automatic annual adjustments on contract rents where MaineHousing determines that further adjustments would result in material differences between contract rents and market rates. View "One & Ken Valley Housing Group v. Me. State Housing Auth." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native-born citizen of the People's Republic of China, entered the U.S. without admission or parole. Six months later, Petitioner filed an affirmative application for asylum and withholding of removal, asserting that he and his wife conceived a second child in violation of China's one-child policy, and that as a result, his wife was subjected to a forced abortion. Petitioner later modified his asylum application, asserting that he and his wife were adherents of Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline that is the target of a suppression campaign by the Chinese government, and that when his wife was pregnant with their child child, Chinese officials came to his home and hit him, and that he was forced into hiding. After a merits hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied asylum, finding Petitioner's claim as initially presented did not entitle him to asylum, that Petitioner's later assertions lacked credibility, and that Petitioner's lack of sincere belief in his practice of Falun Gong meant he was not entitled to asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's findings regarding Petitioner's credibility. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

The United States Postal Services (USPS) terminated Plaintiff's employment contract after discovering, through a sting operation, that Plaintiff had stolen mail containing money. The Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals (PSBCA) convened an evidentiary hearing and determined that Plaintiff's breach of his employment contract justified the decision to terminate his contract. Plaintiff did not appeal this decision. Meanwhile, Plaintiff initiated a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the United States for the actions of USPS employees on the date of the sting, alleging six torts. The district court dismissed three of the claims and granted summary judgment to the government on the remaining claims. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court as to all claims, holding (1) the district court correctly concluded that the PSCBA's findings precluded relitigation of the factual issues in Plaintiff's FTCA suit; and (2) summary judgment was properly granted as to Plaintiff's FTCA claims for negligent supervision, malicious prosecution, and invasion of privacy by postal inspectors. View "Rios-Pineiro v. United States" on Justia Law

This action arose out of Plaintiffs' alleged breach of a conservation restriction appurtenant to their Hudson, Massachusetts home. Plaintiffs and members of the Hudson Conservation Commission clashed over Plaintiffs' compliance efforts. In the meantime, a Hudson Police captain filed charges against Plaintiff for criminal harassment and threat to commit a crime based on Plaintiff's alleged misconduct to his neighbors. All charges were later dropped against Plaintiff. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against the Town of Hudson, the Commission, and several state and local officials, alleging that Commission members, an administrator, and a building inspector violated the equal protection clause by selectively enforcing local laws against them and that the conduct of town officials and other defendants were so outrageous as to constitute substantive due process violations. The district court dismissed the suit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' complaint did not plead facts sufficient to support any of their federal claims. View "Freeman v. Town of Hudson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, applied to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration to manufacture marijuana for clinical research. An ALJ recommended that the DEA granted Plaintiff's application. The DEA Deputy Administrator Administrator rejected the ALJ's recommendation and denied Plaintiff's application. The Administrator then denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiff's petition for review, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's petition for review; (2) under Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Administrator's interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act was permissible; and (3) the Administrator's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. View "Craker v. Drug Enforcement Admin." on Justia Law

Former employees (Plaintiffs) of a failed bank taken into receivership by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sued Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR), a bank that subsequently acquired the failed bank's deposits and certain assets on claims for severance pay. The FDIC intervened, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the claims because Plaintiffs either failed to file administrative claims with the FDIC or failed to challenge in federal court the FDIC's disallowance of their administrative claims. BPPR moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for any severance claims for at least three different merits-based reasons. The district court granted summary judgment for BPPR and did not address the question of whether it had jurisdiction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated entry of summary judgment for Defendants and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that Plaintiffs' failures to comply with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act administrative claims process triggered the statutory bar, and Plaintiffs could not avoid the jurisdictional bar by failing to name the FDIC as a defendant. View "Acosta-Ramirez v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Petitioner was granted conditional permanent residency in the U.S. on the basis of her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Petitioner and her husband then began divorce proceedings. Petitioner subsequently sought to remove the conditions on her residency. The Department of Homeland Security (Department) denied Petitioner's petition, terminated her conditional resident status, and initiated removal proceedings against her, concluding that Petitioner did not establish that she married her husband in good faith. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's request for removal of conditions and determined Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she could not establish the requisite good moral character. Consequently, the IJ ordered Petitioner's removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Petitioner did not establish she married her husband in good faith; and (2) the Board did not err in concluding that Petitioner was subject to a mandatory bar to a finding of good moral character on the basis of false testimony in her immigration proceedings. View "Reynoso v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Egyptian-American, filed a workplace discrimination suit against the Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America alleging that he was denied career advancement opportunities on account of his religion of Islam and his national origin. After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Mohegan Council's motion for judgment as a matter of law, where (1) the district court correctly found that Mohegan Council was an "employer" with the requisite fifteen or more employees under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) Plaintiff's complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination was timely filed; and (3) sufficient evidence supported a finding of discrimination. View "Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boys Scouts of Am." on Justia Law