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

In this civil rights action alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, and 1985, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Stanley Spiegel and later granting summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, holding that the allegations against Spiegel failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Defendant's second amended complaint named as defendants the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, the Brookline Board of Selectmen, certain members of the Board, Spiegel (a town meeting member), and others. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants discriminated against him on the basis of race, retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights, and conspired to enforce the Town's policy of opposing racial equality. After the district court disposed of Defendant's claims he appealed, arguing that the district court erred by dismissing his claims against Spiegel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there were no facts pleaded in the complaint sufficient to ground a reasonable inference that Spiegel was liable to Defendant for any of the causes of action he brought. View "Alston v. Town of Brookline, Massachusetts" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's supervised release and sentencing him to six months of imprisonment and an additional eight years of supervised release, holding that Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated.On appeal, Defendant argued that the revocation of his release violated his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and that his suspension from treatment violated his Fifth Amendment due process right. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) a court in this circuit can impose mandatory periodic polygraph examinations in connection with sex offender treatment programs as a condition of supervised release, where the condition prohibits basing revocation in any way on the defendant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; (2) in this case, no penalty was attached to Defendant's potential invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, and therefore, his privilege was not violated; and (3) Defendant's suspension from sex offender treatment did not violate his Fifth Amendment right to due process. View "United States v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the district court must recalculate the Guidelines sentencing range.Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine. Before sentencing, Defendant argued that this prior conviction as a joint venturer for an otherwise violent crime did not qualify for career-offender status. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty months' imprisonment and six years of supervised release. The government appealed, arguing that the district court erred in deciding not to apply the career-offender enhancement. The First Circuit vacated the sentence, holding that the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of United States v. Capelton, 966 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020). View "United States v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellants' motion to intervene in the underlying suit involving a challenge to the U.S. Department of Education's recent promulgation of a challenged regulation, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to intervene.The regulation at issue sets the standard for actionable sexual harassment for administrative enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and provides additional procedural protections to students who have been accused of sexual harassment. Appellants - the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Independent Women's Law Center, and Speech First, Inc. - moved to intervene. The district court denied the motion, finding that Appellants had failed to show that the government would not adequately protect their rights. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention. View "Victim Rights Law Center v. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant but should have provided a sealed copy of the written statement of reasons (SOR) upon Defendant's request.Defendant's guidelines sentencing range (GSR) was thirty-three to forty-one months. The district court sentenced Defendant to 120 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release - the statutory maximum - and denied Defendant's request to access the SOR. The First Circuit affirmed the sentence but remanded the case to give defense counsel access to the SOR, holding (1) the sentencing court did not err in relying on Defendant's criminal history and the type of weapon he possessed in sentencing Defendant; (2) the district court properly considered other relevant factors; and (3) Defendant should have been allowed to access the SOR. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Flores" on Justia Law

In this contract dispute under Massachusetts law between Dahua Technology USA Inc. and Feng Zhang, Dahua's former employee, the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dahua, holding that there were material facts in dispute.Dahua filed a complaint against Zhang seeking a declaratory judgment that a 2017 agreement between the parties was unenforceable and asked the court to reform it due to mutual mistake. Dahua further sought damages for breaching the parties' contact's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Zhang filed a counterclaim alleging that Dahua breached a second 2017 contract. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dahua and denied Zhang's motion for summary judgment. The First Circuit vacated the summary judgment, holding that there were at least there triable issues of fact on the record precluding summary judgment. View "Dahua Technology USA, Inc. v. Zhang" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the ruling of the district court approving a consent decree to which Appellants, three companies, were not parties but that had been entered into by certain federal agencies, Emhart Industries, and the State of Rhode Island, holding that the district court's approval of the decree was proper.The decree settled claims involving parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Rhode Island law regarding the responsibility for and allocation of the costs of the cleanup of a contaminated Superfund site located in North Providence, Rhode Island. The decree further purported to bar Appellants' own CERCLA claims against Emhart and the federal agencies relevant to the allocation of the costs of the site's cleanup. The district court approved the decree. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in approving the decree. View "Emhart Industries, Inc. v. CNA Holdings LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal arising from a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Puerto Rico Civil Rights Act the First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court denying Plaintiffs' post-judgment motion for attorney's fees and motion to reopen, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that they encountered barriers to their equal access and full enjoyment of Defendants' facilities, services, goods, and amenities. Plaintiffs later moved for final judgment on their ADA claims, claiming that they obtained the requested relief under federal law because Defendants had agreed to make challenges or adjustments to the design of the locale. The district court dismissed the claims without prejudice, stating that Plaintiffs may file a motion to reopen if Defendants failed to comply with the agreed-upon deadlines. Plaintiffs then moved for attorney's fees, arguing that they were the prevailing parties under the ADA's fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. 12205. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the requisite judicial imprimatur on the outcome to make them prevailing parties; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the case based on Appellants' allegations. View "Suarez-Torres v. Panaderia y Reposteria Espana, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to approach the vehicle in which Defendant was a passenger and direct its occupants to exit.Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of cash and drugs that were recovered from him and the other occupant of the car after officers instigated an investigatory motor vehicle stop. The district court denied the motion, holding that reasonable suspicion existed to support the traffic stop. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the police officers had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle's occupants were involved in illegal drug activity, and therefore, the officers' decision to approach the car and search Defendant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Tom" on Justia Law

In this action brought under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq., the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claim against American Airlines, Inc. and later granting Allied Pilots Association's (APA) motion for summary judgment, holding that that APA did not breach its duty of fair representation and that Plaintiff could not maintain a claim against American Airlines.In 1999, Bryan's then-union submitted a grievance on his behalf alleging that his then-employer violated the terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement and that APA, the successor to the previous union, breached its duty of fair representation under the RLA by withdrawing from pursuing his grievance to arbitration based on an allegedly inadequate investigation into the grievance's merits. Bryan also suit American Airlines, the successor to his previous employer, for his previous employer's alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The district court disposed of the claims through dismissal and summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) APA did not breach its duty of fair representation under the RLA; and (2) based on Bryan's own concession, he could not maintain a claim against American Airlines. View "Bryan v. American Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law