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

The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal of the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint seeking an order compelling the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to rescind and reissue an order of removal it affirmed in 2013 and later refused to reopen, holding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.In 2013, the BIA affirmed an order authorizing the removal of Appellant to his country of origin. Appellant filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, which the BIA denied. Appellant then commenced this action in the United States District Court against officials of the Department of Justice claiming a right of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and any statutes providing for habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that Appellant's APA claim and habeas claim both arose from his removal proceedings and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. View "Gicharu v. Carr" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals concerning the "categorical and sweeping nature" of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Section 99 violates the First Amendment in criminalizing the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces, holding that the district court properly accounted for the values of both privacy and accountability within our constitutional system.Section 99 makes it a crime to record another person's words secretly and without consent, but Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded. In 2016, two sets of plaintiffs - the Martin Plaintiffs and Project Veritas Action Fund - filed suit alleging that Section 99 violates the First Amendment. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Martin Plaintiffs; and (2) affirmed the district court's order dismissing Project Veritas's First Amendment overbreadth challenge for failing to state a claim but vacated on ripeness grounds the dismissal with prejudice of Project Veritas's remaining First Amendment challenges to the statute and remanded with instructions to dismiss the claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, Martin v. Rollins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting JPMorgan Chase Bank's (Chase) motion to dismiss Mark and Beth Thompson's action for breach of contract and for violating the statutory power of sale Massachusetts affords mortgagees, holding that the foreclosure sale was not void.The Thompsons alleged that Chase failed to comply with the notice requirements in their mortgage before foreclosing on their property. The mortgage terms for which Massachusetts courts demand strict compliance include the provisions in paragraph 22 of the mortgage requiring and prescribing the pre-foreclosure default notice. The Thompsons argued that because paragraph 19 of the mortgage included conditions and time limitations on the Thompsons' post-acceleration reinstatement right, Chase failed to strictly comply with paragraph 22's notice requirement by failing to inform the Thompsons of those conditions and limitations. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit held that the paragraph 22 notice the Thompsons received was potentially deceptive and, therefore, the foreclosure sale was void. The Court then withdrew its decision and certified a question to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). Because the SJC held that the paragraph 22 notice could not have been misleading for omitting paragraph 19's deadline, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In this case brought under the anti-retaliation provision of the False Claims Act, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Plaintiff $762,525 in compensatory damages, holding that the causation standard for retaliation claims under the Act is a "but-for" standard.Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, her employer, alleging that Defendant had retaliated against her in violation of the Act after it learned that she had filed a qui tam action against it and one of its largest customers. The jury awarded Plaintiff compensatory damages, and the district court denied Plaintiff's subsequent motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) retaliation claims under the Act must be evaluated under the "but-for" causation standard; (2) the "substantial motivating factor" instruction given to the jury was erroneous, but the instruction was not plain error; (3) the jury supportably found sufficient evidence against Defendant on the retaliation claim; and (4) the district court properly denied Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "Lestage v. Coloplast Corp." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of stealing a motor vehicle and one count of brandishing a firearm, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to compel Defendant's co-defendant to testify and by denying Defendant's motion to delay the trial until after Defendant's co-defendant was sentenced; and (3) precedent foreclosed Defendant's argument that the jury's verdict was inconsistent and his conviction should be vacated. View "United States v. Forty-Febres" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law and dismissing Plaintiff's claim that she was fired from her position because of her age, holding that Plaintiff's claims were without merit.After she was discharged, Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 623(a)(1). Plaintiff also asserted a number of supplemental claims under Puerto Rico law. At trial, once Plaintiff rested, Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not contradict the law of the case doctrine when it excluded certain evidence at trial; (2) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit the evidence at trial; and (3) did not err in entering judgment as a matter of law. View "Daumont-Colon v. Coop de Ahorro y Cred Caguas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing a machine-gun, holding that the district court did not err in sentencing Defendant.In sentencing Defendant, the district court sentenced Defendant to sixty months, which was outside the guidelines range. The First Circuit largely affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it calculated Defendant's guideline sentencing using other relevant conduct; (2) the sentencing court did not improperly rely on an arrest that was unsupported by probable cause; and (3) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant access to the written Statement of Reasons (SOR) but erred when it denied counsel access to the SOR. The Court remanded the case to give defense counsel access to the SOR. View "United States v. Ramirez-Romero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed these consolidated appeals, and a companion appeal, arising out of long-running litigation between Puerto Rico and several Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) over the Commonwealth's failure to make payments to the FQHCs, holding that the orders appealed from were void.Here, the FQHCs asserted new claims that the Commonwealth failed fully to pay the statutorily required reimbursement amounts for the services they provided to underserved patients under the Medicaid Act. The First Circuit dismissed the appeals, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to resolve the merits of the underlying orders because they were void. View "HealthproMed Foundation, Inc. v. Department of Health And Human Services" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence of eighty-six months' imprisonment after pleading guilty to two firearms counts, holding that the sentence was not procedurally unreasonable.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court (1) committed clear error by applying the four-point enhancement under Guidelines § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B); and (2) failed to provide the notice required by Rule 32(h) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure before imposing a sentence that departed from the Guidelines. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by applying the four-point enhancement; and (2) because the district court imposed a "variance," not a "departure," it did not violate Rule 32(h). View "United States v. Tirado-Nieves" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioner's habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance in deciding not to call two witnesses during Petitioner's trial and introduce certain documents.After a trial, Petitioner was found guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine and of aiding and abetting others to do so as well. Thereafter, Petitioner field a timely habeas petition, arguing that his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment was violated by deciding not to call two witnesses during trial. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, Defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed because there was no reasonable probability that the results of the trial would have been different had counsel called the two witnesses. View "Rijo v. United States" on Justia Law