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

Michael Rivera, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, was in an open-air telephone cage when he overheard prison officials preparing to forcibly extract another inmate, Ryan Miller, from a nearby cell. Anticipating the use of pepper spray, Rivera informed the officials that exposure to the spray would trigger his asthma. Despite his pleas to be moved back to his cell, the officials refused, citing the lack of available personnel due to the ongoing preparations for Miller's extraction. After the pepper spray was deployed, Rivera suffered an asthma attack. He sued the prison officials for damages, alleging they had acted with deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm to him, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the prison officials. The court concluded that the law was not clearly established to the extent that the officials would have known that their actions violated the Eighth Amendment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The court noted that the officials were confronted with competing institutional concerns and that the cited case law did not clearly establish that the officials' decision to prioritize one prisoner's health and safety over another's violated the Eighth Amendment. View "Rivera v. Redfern" on Justia Law

This case revolves around Harvey Robinson, who was convicted of multiple crimes including three counts of first-degree murder. The prosecution sought the death penalty for each of the murder counts, arguing that Robinson posed a future danger to society if he was ever released from prison. During sentencing, a juror asked the judge whether a life sentence would entail parole. The judge initially speculated that while current law doesn't permit parole, the law might change in the future. Later, the judge corrected his statement, firmly asserting that life imprisonment meant no parole.Robinson's case went through several layers of courts. During his appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, arguing that the prosecution did not make an issue of Robinson's future dangerousness and there was no error in the trial court's instruction. The state courts and a federal district court denied him collateral relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling. The court noted that the judge's final instruction to the jury made it clear that Robinson, if sentenced to life imprisonment, would not be eligible for parole. The court concluded that even if the judge's initial speculation about parole had been problematic, his subsequent correction absolved any error. The court also concluded that the prosecution had indeed raised the issue of Robinson's future dangerousness, contrary to the state court's ruling. Thus, the court upheld the denial of habeas corpus. View "Robinson v. Secretary, Pennsylvania Department Of Corrections" on Justia Law

This case involves a criminal defendant, William Barksdale, who was denied the right to testify in his own defense during a supervised release revocation hearing. Barksdale had previously pled guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud, was sentenced to twenty months in prison and five years' supervised release. Near the end of his supervised release, his probation officer reported ten potential violations of his release terms to the District Court. During the revocation hearing, Barksdale repeatedly expressed his desire to testify, but the judge denied his request, stating that Barksdale had chosen not to testify. The judge then found Barksdale guilty of nine release violations and sentenced him to thirty months in prison.Barksdale appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court denied him his right to testify in his own defense. The Circuit Court reviewed the District Court's findings of fact for clear error, its legal rulings de novo, and its ultimate decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of discretion.The Circuit Court found that on the record before them, the District Court judge had erred in denying Barksdale his right to testify. The Court ruled that nowhere on the record did Barksdale himself waive that right, and thus he was denied his constitutional right to testify. The government was then required to prove that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which they failed to do. The Court noted that even if Barksdale's testimony could have reduced his sentence only slightly, that is enough to make the error harmful.Finally, despite Barksdale's request for a new judge on remand, the Circuit Court found no evidence of bias or appearance of bias from the District Court judge. Therefore, the case was remanded to the same judge for a new revocation hearing. View "United States v. Barksdale" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant, Davit Davitashvili, who was charged with violating federal law by transmitting threats to injure his ex-wife, Olga Volosevich, and other unnamed individuals. This was after a long history of abusive behavior towards Volosevich, culminating in threatening messages sent to her via the messaging app Viber. Davitashvili appealed his conviction, arguing that his threats towards unnamed individuals were constitutionally protected speech.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed with Davitashvili's claim. It noted that Davitashvili's threats towards "others" were not protected speech under the First Amendment, as they targeted particular individuals, supporting a conviction. The court pointed out that the jury instructions required the jury to find that Davitashvili’s communication threatened to "injure a person or a group of people," which accurately reflected the relevant federal law.As for the defendant's argument that his conviction was based on an invalid theory (threatening unspecified "others"), the court held that the jury likely would have convicted Davitashvili based on his threats to Volosevich alone, even if the "kill others" theory was excluded. The court concluded that the trial was error-free and affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "USA v. Davitashvili" on Justia Law

In this case, a group of electricity providers challenged orders by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), arguing that FERC allowed a new auction rule to apply retroactively to a pending auction. The auction was overseen by PJM Interconnection L.L.C., a FERC-regulated wholesale market operator. PJM had halted the auction upon realizing that the results could lead to a high clearing price for a particular region due to a faulty assumption regarding the participation of certain resources. PJM sought and received permission from FERC to amend the tariff to allow it to adjust the Locational Deliverability Area (LDA) Reliability Requirement downward, reflecting the lack of participation of certain resources.The petitioners argued that this violated the filed rate doctrine, which prohibits retroactive rates. The court agreed, finding that the tariff amendment was retroactive because it altered the legal consequence attached to a past action: it allowed for the use of a different LDA Reliability Requirement than the one PJM had calculated and posted. The court noted that equitable considerations did not factor into the application of the filed rate doctrine, emphasizing the importance of predictability in the electricity markets.The court granted the petitions and vacated the orders in relevant part, specifically the portion of FERC’s orders that permitted PJM to apply the tariff amendment to the 2024/25 capacity auction. View "Constellation Energy Generation LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Several power providers and their associations challenged orders from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that retroactively permitted a new auction rule to apply to a pending auction. The rule was implemented by PJM Interconnection L.L.C., the entity responsible for the auction, to determine the auction's results. The petitioners claimed FERC's orders violated the filed rate doctrine, which prohibits retroactive rates. The case background involves the Federal Power Act (FPA), which grants FERC exclusive jurisdiction over rates for the transmission and wholesale of electric energy in interstate commerce. The FPA requires all related rates, rules, and regulations to be "just and reasonable" and not unduly preferential.The petitioners and FERC agreed that the filed rate was the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, which sets the procedures governing PJM’s capacity auctions. PJM administered a capacity auction in December 2022 for capacity in the June 2024 – May 2025 period. A dispute arose when PJM sought to adjust the Locational Deliverability Area (LDA) Reliability Requirement due to perceived anomalies in the auction results, which would have resulted in a high clearing price for a certain region. FERC approved the proposed adjustment, which was challenged by the petitioners.The court agreed with the petitioners and held that the orders of FERC were retroactive and thus violated the filed rate doctrine. The court granted the petitions and vacated the orders in the relevant part. The court emphasized that the equities play no role in the application of the filed rate doctrine and that predictability is of paramount importance in electricity markets. It concluded that FERC’s disregard of the filed rate doctrine creates unpredictability in the markets and may ultimately harm consumers who buy electricity in those markets. View "Electric Power Supply Association v. FERC" on Justia Law

A group of power providers contested orders from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that permitted a new auction rule to retroactively apply to a pending auction. The petitioners argued that this violated the filed rate doctrine, which forbids retroactive rates. The auction, administered by the PJM Interconnection LLC (PJM), aimed to ensure reliable electric supply at competitive prices. PJM halted the auction, seeking FERC's permission to amend certain auction parameters it had already posted, which, if left uncorrected, might have led to a high clearing price for a specific region. FERC approved the amendment and allowed it to apply to the halted auction, which the petitioners challenged. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the petitioners, stating that the amendment was retroactive as it altered the legal consequence attached to PJM's past action in the auction. The court granted the petitions and vacated the portion of FERC's orders that allowed the amendment to apply to the auction in question. View "NRG Power Marketing v. FERC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) allowing a new auction rule to apply retroactively to a pending auction. This auction was administered by PJM Interconnection L.L.C., an entity responsible for running the auction. The petitioners, electric suppliers and their trade associations, contended that FERC's orders violated the filed rate doctrine, which forbids retroactive rates.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the Tariff Amendment was retroactive because it altered the legal consequence attached to a past action when it allowed PJM to use a different Locational Deliverability Area (LDA) Reliability Requirement than the one it had calculated and posted. The court noted that the Tariff Amendment, therefore, violated the filed rate doctrine.The court ruled that the doctrine's predictability is crucial because electricity markets depend on it. FERC’s disregard of the filed rate doctrine created unpredictability in the markets, potentially eroding confidence in the markets and ultimately harming consumers who buy electricity in those markets.The court granted the petitions for review and vacated the portion of FERC’s orders that allowed PJM to apply the Tariff Amendment to the 2024/25 capacity auction. View "Constellation Energy Generation LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

This case involved several petitioners challenging orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which allowed a new auction rule to retroactively apply to an auction that was already underway. The auction was managed by PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (PJM), which ran the auction based on a tariff (filed rate) that set out specific procedures. The petitioners argued that FERC's orders violated the filed rate doctrine, which prohibits retroactive rates.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the petitioners. The court found that the new rule was retroactive because it altered the legal consequences attached to past actions. Specifically, the rule allowed PJM to use a different Locational Deliverability Area (LDA) Reliability Requirement than the one it had calculated and posted.The court noted that, while FERC's orders were seemingly intended to prevent potential economic harm to consumers, the filed rate doctrine's emphasis on predictability and the necessity of adherence to approved rates were paramount. The court concluded that FERC's orders, by allowing a change to the rules of an auction already in progress, introduced unpredictability into the electricity market, potentially eroding market confidence.Therefore, the court granted the petitions for review and vacated the portion of FERC's orders that allowed PJM to apply the new rule to the auction that was already underway. The court did not strike down the rule entirely, leaving open the possibility of it being applied to future auctions. View "Electric Power Supply Association v. FERC" on Justia Law

In this case, a group of electricity suppliers and their trade associations challenged orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that permitted PJM Interconnection L.L.C., a wholesale market operator, to apply a new auction rule retroactively to a pending auction. The petitioners argued that FERC's orders violated the filed rate doctrine, which prohibits retroactive rates. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed and granted the petitions, vacating the relevant parts of the orders.The central issue revolved around the Locational Deliverability Area (LDA) Reliability Requirement, a key parameter in PJM's auction process. Prior to the auction, PJM had miscalculated the LDA Reliability Requirement, which led to a potential price increase for a specific region. To correct this, PJM sought FERC's permission to amend the tariff to allow for a downward adjustment of the LDA Reliability Requirement. FERC granted this permission, allowing the new rule to apply to the ongoing auction, which the petitioners argued was a retroactive change in violation of the filed rate doctrine.The court found that the tariff amendment was indeed retroactive as it altered the legal consequence attached to a past action, specifically, PJM's calculation and posting of the LDA Reliability Requirement. The court held that the filed rate doctrine did not yield to equities and that the tariff amendment's retroactivity created instability in the electricity market. Consequently, the court vacated the portion of FERC's orders that allowed PJM to apply the tariff amendment to the 2024/25 capacity auction. View "NRG Business Marketing LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law