Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner challenged the conditions of his confinement at the Federal Correctional Institution in Talladega, Alabama. The district court concluded that venue in the District of Columbia was improper and ordered the action transferred to the Northern District of Alabama. Petitioner and four fellow prisoners filed a mandamus petition seeking to vacate the transfer order and also compelling the district court clerk to accept certain rejected filings. The court denied petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because petitioner has run afoul of the Prison Litigation Reform Act's, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), three strikes provision and has failed to demonstrate that he qualifies for the imminent danger exception; held that the remaining petitioners lacked standing to challenge either the transfer order or the clerk's rejection of the filings; and denied the motion to stay the collection of filing fees pending the payment of fees in other cases. View "Pinson, et al. v. Lappin, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order of summary judgment rejecting her claim of workplace racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to identify evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that her non-promotion was racially discriminatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mulrain v. Castro" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Guantanamo detainees, filed suit challenging two new policies that they claimed place an undue burden on their ability to meet with their lawyers. The first challenged policy concerns where the detainees may meet with their lawyers. The second challenged policy involves the search the detainees must undergo when meeting with their lawyers. The court concluded that administering a more thorough search in connection with attorney visits as well as with any other detainee movements or meetings is a reasonable response to a serious threat to security at Guantanamo. The court also concluded that it is reasonable to require that all meetings between detainees and their visitors, including counsel, take place in Camp Echo, which requires fewer guards than the housing camps. Further, the new policies are reasonable under the remaining factors of the Turner v. Safley test. The tenuous evidence of an improper motive to obstruct access to counsel in this case cannot overcome the legitimate, rational connection between the security needs of Guantanamo Bay and thorough searches of detainees. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Hatim, et al. v. Obama, et al." on Justia Law

Eight African-American Secret Service agents were certified by the district court to sue the Secretary on behalf of a class comprising of all similarly situated agents who were denied promotions to the GS-14 and GS-15 level. The government sought interlocutory review of the class certification order under Rule 23(f). The court concluded that none of the district court's rulings in support of its order certifying the plaintiff class is foreclosed by controlling precedent and the unsettled questions are not likely to evade end-of-the-case review. Accordingly, the court declined to review the district court's order. View "In re: Jeh Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a securities class action contending that AIG and its board of directors wrongfully reduced the value of certain securities issued by AIG. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 15 U.S.C. 77p(d) and 78bb(f)(3), does not confer federal jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claims. View "Campbell v. AIG, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when his appellate counsel failed to seek plain error review of the trial judge's instruction that the jury must find him guilty even if the government failed to prove an element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that petitioner met his burden under Strickland v. Washington and that he was entitled to a new direct appeal at which he may raise this instructional error before the D.C. Court of Appeals for plain error review. View "Payne v. Stansberry" on Justia Law

Section 5000A of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. 5000A, mandates that as of January 2014, non-exempt individuals maintain minimum health care coverage or, with limited exceptions, pay a penalty. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the mandate violated the Commerce Clause and the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The court concluded that plaintiff's contention that the mandate obligating him to buy government-approved health insurance violates the Commerce Clause fails under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the mandate in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius; plaintiff's contention that the mandate's shared responsibility payment was enacted in violation of the Origination Clause fails under Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Clause; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of his complaint. View "Sissel v. HHS, et al." on Justia Law

Appellant, a retired officer of the Navy Reserve, seeks to correct his military record to reflect that he was retired by reason of physical disability. When appellant was discharged from the Selected Reserve and transferred to the Retired Reserve, he was found "Not Physically Qualified" to continue service. Appellant argued, inter alia, that he should have been given a physical disability retirement due to his psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. The district court dismissed the action because it was barred by an earlier CFC dismissal under the doctrine of res judicata. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims challenging his 1996 discharge from active duty, his 2002 discharge from the Selected Reserve, and the BCNR decisions issued between 2000 and 2002, because those claims were barred by the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., statute of limitations. However, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of appellant's challenges to the 2006 and 2007 BCNR decisions and remanded for further proceedings. Res judicata did not bar appellant's suit because the CFC dismissal did not constitute a final, valid judgment on the merits. View "Havens v. Mabus, Jr." on Justia Law

IPG challenged the distribution of royalties from a royalty fund managed by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, which provides payments to copyright holders when they are statutorily obligated to license their work to third parties. IPG's former president had signed a settlement agreement that fully disposed of IPG's interest in the royalties at issue concerning religious programming broadcasts on cable television in 1998. In this case, IPG seeks judicial review under an inapposite jurisdictional grant of a decade-old distribution based on the actions of IPG's then-president, on which the Royalty Judges reasonably relied, and indeed, the authority for which has never been challenged. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked statutory jurisdiction over the dispute. View "Independent Producers Group, et al. v. Library of Congress, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of various fraud charges, sentenced to nine years in prison, and ordered to pay restitution. Two years later, the sentencing court held a hearing because defendant paid only a negligible amount toward his fine and restitution. Defendant subsequently paid with a fictitious International Bill of Exchange that he created. In 2007, the district court held a hearing to determine whether defendant should be held in civil contempt until he made the payment. Defendant appeared pro se, asserted no defense, was held in contempt, and remained incarcerated for the next five years. In 2012, the district court ruled that defendant had not met his burden of making out an inability-to-comply defense, and ordered defendant's contempt status continued. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant's various challenges to the district court's 2007 order because defendant failed to timely appeal that order. With regard to the 2012 proceedings, the court held that defendant waived any due process right to counsel he may have had. The court denied defendant's remaining challenges and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Gewin" on Justia Law