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

Plaintiff filed a complaint against the District of Columbia and others regarding the pretrial conditions of his confinement. The District agreed that the the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), requirement did not apply to plaintiff but urged the court to affirm the grant of summary judgment on his federal claims for failure to exhaust. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the PLRA exhaustion requirement did not apply because plaintiff was not a "prisoner" at the time he filed his complaint. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriately granted on his federal claims. As to his intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim, the court held that it had been abandoned because neither plaintiff's proposed amended complaint nor amicus brief, which he adopted, referenced that claim, and his pro se appellate brief provided no argument why the dismissal should be reversed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded plaintiff's federal claims to the district court. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Lesesne v. Doe, et al" on Justia Law

Indiana Boxcar, a holding company that owns several railroads, petitioned for review of the Board's determination that Indiana Boxcar was an "employer" for purposes of the Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. 231, 351. To be an employer under those two Acts, a company such as Indiana Boxcar must be "under common control" with a railroad. Before this case, the Board repeatedly held that parent corporations like Indiana Boxcar were not under common control with their railroad subsidiaries. Under Board precedent, the term "common control" did not usually apply to two companies in a parent-subsidiary relationship. Here, however, the Board did not adhere to that precedent and did not reasonably explain and justify its deviation from its precedent. Therefore, the court held that the Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the Board. View "Indiana Boxcar Corp. v. RRRB" on Justia Law

Appellants challenged the IRS's deficiency finding, as well as an accuracy-related penalty. On appeal, appellants argued that the Tax Court misunderstood relevant law when it affirmed the IRS's calculation of their remaining basis in their S corporation. They also challenged the factual basis for the Tax Court's decisions affirming the Service's rejection of their over-reporting claim and upholding its imposition of the penalty. The court rejected defendant's first challenge, concluding that a shareholder's basis was decreased "for any period" by the amount of that shareholder's pro rata share of the corporation's losses, and a shareholder incurred previously unabsorbed losses in the first year the shareholder had adequate basis to do so. In regards to the over-reporting claim, the court held that the Tax Court made no clear error when it upheld the IRS's determination not to reduce the sole proprietorship's income. Consequently, there was no dispute that appellants' 2003 tax return understated their taxes by an amount that qualified as substantial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Barnes, et al v. Commissioner, IRS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued his employer, Fannie Mae, alleging violations of federal anti-discrimination laws by denying him a salary increase for discriminatory reasons; maintaining a racially hostile work environment; and retaliating against him for filing a discrimination complaint. The district court granted Fannie Mae summary judgment. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Fannie Mae unlawfully discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to a trial on those claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all of plaintiff's anti-discrimination claims. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's D.C. law defamation claim because the statements at issue were not false. View "Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, et al" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from CREW's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, request to the FEC seeking several categories of records, including certain correspondence, calendars, agendas, and schedules of the Commissioners. At issue was when must a FOIA requester exhaust administrative appeal remedies before suing in federal district court to challenge an agency's failure to produce requested documents. The exhaustion issue in this case boiled down to what kind of agency response qualified as a "determination." The court held that, in order to make a "determination" within the statutory time periods and thereby trigger the administrative exhaustion requirement, the agency need not actually produce the documents within the relevant time period. But the agency must at least indicate within the relevant time period the scope of the documents its will produce and the exemptions it will claim with respect to any withheld documents. In this case, the FEC did not make such a "determination" and CREW was not required to exhaust administrative appeal remedies before filing its FOIA suit. Accordingly, the court reversed the contrary judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Citizens for Resp. and Ethics v. FEC" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former national treasurer of the Phi Beta Sigma fraternity, pled guilty to a single count of bank fraud and received a sentence of the time he had already served on earlier convictions, plus five years of supervised release. Defendant had successfully appealed his convictions of multiple counts of bank fraud because the district court erred in admitting certain of his statements in evidence. On appeal, defendant contended that his term of supervised release should be calculated as having commenced when he was ordered released on his own recognizance pending his ultimately successful appeal. The court disagreed and concluded that defendant's term of supervised release did not commence until he was sentenced, on the charge to which he pled guilty, to time served plus five years of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three applicants for attorney positions under the Honors Program in 2006, alleged that they were not selected for interviews because of their political affiliations. Plaintiffs claimed that senior officials at the DOJ created records describing how an individual exercised First Amendment rights, in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, in the form of annotations to plaintiffs' applications and internet printouts concerning their political affiliations. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriately granted on plaintiffs' Privacy Act claims under 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(5) and (e)(7). In light of the destruction of plaintiffs' records, a permissive spoliation inference was warranted because the senior DOJ officials had a duty to preserve the annotated applications and internet printouts given that DOJ investigation and future litigation were reasonably foreseeable. On remand, the district court shall construe the evidence in light of this negative spoliation inference, which would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that two of the plaintiffs were harmed by creation and use of the destroyed records. View "Gerlich, et al v. DOJ, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought civil claims against the sitting president of Sri Lanka under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the president was not immune from civil suit under the TVPA. Because, as a consequence of the State Department's suggestion of immunity, the president was entitled to head of state immunity under the common law while he remained in office, and because the TVPA did not abrogate that common law immunity, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint. View "Manoharan, et al v. Rajapaksa" on Justia Law

Defendant, the former CFO of the National City Christian Church, was convicted of offenses related to his role in swindling the church out of more than $850,000, much of it through arranging an increase in the church's line of credit at Adams National Bank. On appeal, defendant contended that the government was required to prove that he stole certain individuals' identity information and that these individuals suffered individual harm beyond that suffered by the church. The court rejected defendant's argument that 18 U.S.C. 1028A required evidence that defendant stole the identity information at issue. The court also held that defendant's argument, that section 1028A applied only where the individuals whose means of identification were unlawfully used have suffered individual harm, lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Peter Knowland sued Syria, Libya, and a number of Syrian and Libyan individuals and organizations for sponsoring and supporting the terrorist attacks on international flight terminals in Rome and Vienna on December 27, 1985. Knowland was injured in the Vienna attack. The district court dismissed the case as untimely, and Knowland's legal representative appealed. Because Knowland filed suit after the statute of limitations had run pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1605A, his only hope of obtaining judicial relief depended on his ability to invoke the "related action" provision. Knowland argued that his suit was related to Estate of Buonocore v. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, a suit against many of the same defendants for their alleged support of the Rome attack. The court concluded that the Vienna and Rome attacks constituted the same incident and thus Buonocore put defendants on notice that they could be liable for the Vienna attack. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Beneden v. Al-Sanusi, et al" on Justia Law