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

The First Circuit granted a petition for review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the final order of removal entered against Petitioner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229-1229a and vacated the BIA's ruling,Petitioner conceded removability but sought relief from removal based on asylum and withholding of removal, as well as the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) denied the applications, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's ruling in part, holding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his assertion of bias; and (2) because the BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Petitioner's story that simply was not an inconsistency, the BIA's ruling affirming the IJ's denial of that claim must be vacated. View "Pujols v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against Harvard University for breach of contract and other related claims, holding that the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's breach of contract claim.The day before Plaintiff was about to graduate from Harvard three female Harvard students accused him of sexual assault. Following a disciplinary hearing, Harvard withheld Plaintiff's undergraduate degree. Plaintiff sued, and the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit reversed in part, holding (1) at the pleadings stage, Plaintiff's allegations, taken as true, stated a plausible breach of contract claim; and (2) the district court properly dismissed the remaining counts of Plaintiff's complaint. View "Sonoiki v. Harvard University" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied a writ of habeas corpus sought by Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 2254 to vacate her conviction for murder in the first degree, holding that there was no error.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder based on deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Petitioner later filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no prejudice on any of the alleged errors claimed by Petitioner. View "Field v. Hallett" on Justia Law

Watkins was convicted of first-degree murder in Massachusetts state court in 2005 for a fatal 2003 shooting. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed his conviction. His federal habeas petition was denied.The First Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. The state courts made an error of fact in their decisions, rejecting a “Brady” claim that a withheld a police report could have been used for the impeachment of a witness (Rudolph), finding that the report did not show the investigating officers were aware that Rudolph was a witness against Watkins. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential standard of review or applying de novo review, Watkins has not shown prejudice arising from the error or with respect to any of his other claims. There was an extensive examination of bias, and the failure to add onto any such evidence hardly would be prejudicial. Rudolph's motivation for reaching out to the police and the agreement that Rudolph later reached with the Commonwealth were discussed at trial and clearly informed Watkins and the jury that Rudolph sought an incentive in return for his cooperation and testimony. View "Watkins v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals of the First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of committing a hate crime and one count of conspiring to commit a hate crime under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr, Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. 249(a)(1), 371, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) section 259(a)(1) does not implicate federalism concerns; (2) certifications made under 249(b) are exempt from judicial review, and therefore, Defendant's challenge to the certification of his prosecution failed; and (3) Defendant's remaining assignment of error was waived. View "United States v. Diggins" on Justia Law

The First Circuit certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) a question regarding whether Massachusetts recognizes a common-law duty for insurers to cover costs incurred by an insured party to prevent imminent covered loss.Ken's Foods incurred extensive losses from an accidental discharge at one of its processing facilities caused wastewater to enter Georgia waterways. Ken's Foods filed a claim with Steadfast Insurance Company seeking clean-up expenses and business losses resulting from a "pollution event" that cause a "suspension of operations." When Steadfast refused to reimburse Ken's Foods for the cost of its prevention efforts Ken's Foods sued in Massachusetts federal court. At issue was whether Ken's Foods could recover from Steadfast the costs it incurred to avoid suspending its operations after the pollution discharge. The district court granted summary judgment for Steadfast. The First Circuit concluded that certification was necessary and certified to the SJC the issue. View "Ken's Foods, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance Co." on Justia Law

In this case arising from losses that SAS International, Ltd. (SAS) claimed to have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting General Star Indemnity Company's motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that there was no error.SAS filed an amended complaint alleging a breach of contract count based on three coverage provisions and a declaration that the relevant policy covered its claims. The district court granted General Star's motion to dismiss all of SAS's claims, holding that COVID-19 and the virus that causes it were not covered causes of loss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting General Star's motion to dismiss. View "SAS International Ltd. v. General Star Indemnity Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the claims brought by Legal Sea Foods under Massachusetts law against Strathmore Insurance Co. following Strathmore's denial of Legal's request for coverage losses it claimed to have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that there was no error.The second amended complaint asserted two breach of contract counts, one count of a violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws, and a declaratory judgment count. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by granting Strathmore's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. View "Legal Sea Foods, LLC v. Strathmore Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions for receipt and possession of child pornography, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant and did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain text-message evidence as inadmissible hearsay.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant failed sufficiently to describe ether pornographic images to be found and that the court erred in excluding from his trial the text message evidence at issue. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) the district court did not err in barring the text messages from Defendant's trial. View "United States v. Chiu" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment for Arch Insurance Co. and dismissing this diversity case brought by Graphic Builders, LLC, a general contractor, seeking to enforce a performance bond issued by Arch as surety for a subcontractor hired to work on a major project for Graphic, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal, Graphic argued that the district court erred in concluding that Arch's obligation to provide the warranty performance it sought was conditioned on termination of the subcontractor and that both the bond's language and relevant precedent supported its position. The First Circuit disagreed and affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Arch. View "Arch Insurance Co. v. Graphic Builders LLC" on Justia Law