Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Taylor, working at Dollar Express in 2000, observed that manager Ritterson routinely arrived at 5:00 a.m. and would smoke a cigarette on the loading dock with the door open before starting work and that the store contained a safe, but no other security measures. Washington, Johnson, Waddy and Taylor planned a robbery. Johnson carried the gun; Washington drove. Washington and Taylor remained in the car while Waddy and Johnson entered and confronted Ritterson and another employee. Johnson shot them. Washington then ran into the store and helped remove $750 from the safe. Waddy filled a bag with merchandise. When the others returned to the car, Taylor did not take any money. Taylor surrendered and agreed to testify. Waddy also gave a statement. Johnson, Waddy, and Washington were tried together. Washington was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, and criminal conspiracy. After exhausting state remedies, Washington obtained conditional federal habeas corpus relief, based on his argument that introduction of a jointly-tried non-testifying coconspirator’s confession violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The redacted confession replaced Washington’s name with “someone I know” or “the driver.” The Third Circuit affirmed; no reasonable reading of Supreme Court Confrontation Clause jurisprudence would permit introduction of the redacted confession. Following remand for consideration under the Supreme Court’s decision in White v. Woodall (2014), the Third Circuit again affirmed. View "Washington v. Sec'y PA Dept. of Corrs." on Justia Law

WICO was founded as a coal bunkering business before the U.S. acquired the Virgin Islands (VI) in 1917 and grew to serve as “Port Agent” for cruise lines that visit the port of Charlotte Amalie and to manage the port's Havensight Mall. In 1986, WICO began dredging St. Thomas harbor, leading to public opposition and litigation. In 1993, the VI Government purchased all of the shares of WICO. The purchase was approved by the VI Legislature. The Act stated that “the Company is hereby granted the status and authority of a public corporation and governmental instrumentality … and shall be deemed to be a public entity operating on behalf of the Government, rather than a private corporation.” All WICO shares were transferred to the VI Public Finance Authority, a public corporation and governmental instrumentality. Two former WICO employees filed suit, alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court dismissed, finding that “WICO cannot be considered a purely public entity,” and that its employees are not public employees, so its conduct could not be considered to have been “under color of state law” for purposes of liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit reversed in part, applying the 1995 Supreme Court decision, Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, to hold that WICO is a government entity for the purposes of Sprauve’s and Smith’s constitutional claims. View "Gershwain Sprauve v. West Indian Company Limited" on Justia Law

Lee’s daughter, Ji, suffered severe mental illness, with suicidal and homicidal ideation. One morning in 1989 police found Lee in the street, retrieving items that Li had thrown out the window. Officers entered the house and found Ji in a manic state, but observed no evidence of violence. At the suggestion of his pastor, Lee took Ji the same day to a religious retreat. Upon arrival, she took a walk and jumped into a body of water; she became agitated and had to be physically restrained. During the night, a fire began in their cabin. Lee escaped, but his daughter died. Lee was charged with arson and murder, based on fire-science and gas-chromatography evidence. The defense argued suicide. Lee was convicted. On appeal, state courts received evidence about developments in fire science that “provided ample reason to question the reliability of the arson investigation,” but denied Lee’s claims. In 1995 Lee filed a pro se post-conviction petition. The Commonwealth did not respond; the petition remained pending. An attorney submitted an amended petition in 2005, claiming newly discovered, exculpatory scientific evidence, and that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise that claim. State courts rejected the argument. Lee filed a federal habeas petition. The Third Circuit reversed a 2010 denial and ordered the district court to grant discovery. On remand the court found that “admission of the fire expert testimony undermined the fundamental fairness of the entire trial” and that the Commonwealth failed to show other “‘ample evidence’ of guilt.” The Third Circuit affirmed the grant of relief. View "Lee v. Superintendent Houtzdale SCI" on Justia Law

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) supervisor Outlaw suspended Jones with full pay after he discovered apparent fraud in her timesheets. Jones complained to SEPTA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office that Outlaw had “sexually harassed” and “retaliated against” her. Outlaw referred the timesheet matter to SEPTA’s Office of Inspector General, which concluded that Jones collected pay for days she hadn’t worked by submitting fraudulent timesheets. SEPTA terminated her. Jones filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. SEPTA ended its internal investigation, concluding that Outlaw had engaged in inappropriate behavior by once asking Jones to step on his back to relieve spinal pain. This was noted in Outlaw’s performance evaluation, and he was required to attend training regarding SEPTA’s sexual harassment policy. Jones filed suit, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act; violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; common law wrongful termination; and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The district court rejected all claims. The Third Circuit affirmed. Jones’s suspension with pay did not constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII. Any adverse actions Jones did suffer were not sufficiently linked to any alleged misconduct to support a claim of discrimination or retaliation. View "Jones v. SE Pa. Transp. Auth." on Justia Law

Temporary civil commitment at New Jersey psychiatric hospitals is subject to regular review; patients have the right to counsel, to be present at the hearing, to present evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses. In a challenge to the state’s “Rennie process” for forcible medication, the Third Circuit held, in 1984, that civilly committed psychiatric patients “have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication” in nonemergency situations and the process accommodated that right consistent with the Due Process Clause. A 2010 challenge alleged that the Rennie process violated the Constitution, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, and demanded that the state “provide patients who refuse the non-emergency administration of psychotropic medication with meaningful due process protections—including legal counsel, notice and a hearing before a judicial decision-maker.” The state replaced the Rennie process with policies for forcible treatment in emergencies (AB 5:04A), which were not challenged, and nonemergent situations (AB 5:04B). The nonemergency policy permits longer-term forcible medication of a patient, involuntarily committed, who, as a result of a diagnosed mental illness, poses a substantial risk of serious harm to self, others, or property “within the reasonably foreseeable future” if psychotropic medication is not administered. Patients who satisfy the substantive requirements may be forcibly medicated only pursuant to procedures that stop short of prior judicial review. The Third Circuit affirmed that AB 5:04B is valid, except as to patients who have been not to require continued commitment but who remain in custody pending transfer. View "Disability Rights N.J., Inc. v. Comm'r N.J. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

Fazio, a permanent resident alien, was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Fazio pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of conspiring to distribute more than 200 grams but fewer than 300 grams of cocaine, waiving the right to take a direct appeal from his conviction or sentence, except if the government appealed from the sentence or the sentence exceeded the applicable statutory limits or unreasonably exceeded the Sentencing Guidelines range. Fazio waived the right to move to vacate sentence (28 U.S.C. 2255) and the right to file any other collateral proceeding attacking his conviction or sentence. The plea agreement stated: Fazio recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status … no one, including his own attorney or the district court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status. The court reviewed the waiver in detail at the hearing. The Third Circuit affirmed denial of Fazio’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, in which he argued that counsel was ineffective in failing to warn Fazio properly of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by the Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky, 2010. View "United States v. Fazio" on Justia Law

In February 2009, Santini was working at his family’s Harmony Township, New Jersey dairy farm, when a fight broke out. Santini and 10 others witnessed the fight. About 20 local and state police officers arrived after the fight ended. Santini, standing outside of the milk house, spoke with a Greenwich Township officer about what he had witnessed. According to Santini, State Trooper Fuhrmann yelled at Santini to take his hands out of his pockets. Santini maintains that he complied and explained that his hands were cold because he had been working all day milking cows. Fuhrmann responded: “I don’t care. Keep them where I [can] see them.” Santini continued to try to warm his hands and Fuhrmann continued to object. Santini told Fuhrmann that he was going to return to work because he had already told the other officers his story and began to walk away. Santini claims he was kicked, punched, and held on the ground, then was sprayed with pepper spray and handcuffed. His medical records from the incident reveal no lasting injuries. The Troopers’ story differs from Santini’s. The district court rejected Santini’s civil rights suit on summary judgment. The Third Circuit vacated, finding material issues of fact as to whether Santini’s constitutional rights were violated. View "Santini v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

DEA agents executed a search warrant in Reading, Pennsylvania and arrested Bui at 1307 Lorraine Road. Bui admitted that “the only reason they purchased that house was to . . . convert it into a marijuana grow factory.” Bui was indicted on: conspiracy to manufacture more than 1,000 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 846; manufacturing, and aiding and abetting the manufacturing, of more than 100 marijuana plants, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. 2; using the house to manufacture and to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1); and manufacturing and distributing marijuana within 1,000 feet of Hampden Park, a school district athletic field, 21 U.S.C. 860(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2. Bui pled guilty to counts one and four and stipulated that the house was within 1000 feet of Hampden Park, so that his base offense level should be increased two levels. According to Bui, he pled guilty because counsel told him he would receive a reduced sentence by doing so and told family members that Bui was eligible for a reduced sentence under the “safety valve,” 18 U.S.C. 3553. At sentencing, counsel withdrew that motion, explaining that section 3553(f) did not apply to 21 U.S.C. 860 convictions. Bui was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment. The district court rejected his pro se habeas petition. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that Bui’s counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "United States v. Bui" on Justia Law

Norris was arrested in 1999 for aggravated assault. Norris complained; the court appointed new counsel for post-verdict motions, but rejected claims of ineffective assistance and imposed sentence under Pennsylvania’s “three strikes” law. In 2003, Norris filed a pro se petition for collateral relief, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal on speedy trial grounds because more than three years elapsed between issuance of the criminal complaint and the trial. The state court dismissed, ruling that the issue lacked merit. On appeal, his attorney (Wolfe) abandoned that argument despite Norris’s insistence that it be included. In pro se filings, Norris presented the argument and claimed ineffective assistance. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Wolfe had not provided ineffective assistance by declining to make the argument. Norris filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that trial and direct appeal counsel were ineffective in failing to raise the speedy trial issue. The court denied the petition because of procedural default. In 2012, Norris moved for relief from judgment invoking a 2012 Supreme Court holding that attorney error in collateral proceedings may sometimes excuse procedural default of a habeas petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim. The district court denied his motion. The Third Circuit affirmed. Norris’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel was presented on initial collateral review and only waived on collateral appeal, so Martinez does not justify relief. View "Norris v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Boyd and Smith, both Caucasians, alleged that their former employer, Boeing, discriminated against them on the basis of their race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, when it terminated their employment after they appeared in a photograph taken at work with a third employee looking like members of the KKK. The district court granted Boeing summary judgment, finding that Boyd and Smith failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because they were not similarly situated to Kenta Smith, the African-American employee who took the photograph and reported the incident. The Third Circuit affirmed, agreeing that “[e]ven if a jury could somehow find that the evidence met the prima facie threshold,” “[t]here is no evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that Boeing did not really fire the plaintiffs for posing as the KKK, or that a more likely cause was Boeing’s animus toward” Caucasians. View "Barker v. Boeing Co" on Justia Law