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

A criminal defendant, convicted of aggravated manslaughter and sentenced to thirty years in prison, twice instructed his attorney to file a plenary appeal. However, his intake appellate counsel designated the appeal for the expedited sentence-review track (ESOA). The ESOA panel did not transfer the case to the plenary calendar and affirmed the sentence. The defendant's subsequent post-conviction relief applications in state court, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, were unsuccessful.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the defendant's habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which included claims related to the ESOA designation. The court also denied his Rule 60(b) motion, which specifically challenged the intake appellate counsel's decision to place the appeal on the ESOA calendar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Rule 60(b) motion was not a second or successive habeas application because it was filed within 28 days of the underlying judgment. However, the court found that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally defaulted because it was not exhausted in state court and he could not show the requisite prejudice to overcome the default. The court applied the Strickland standard for prejudice, requiring a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for counsel's errors, rather than the Flores-Ortega standard, which applies when the entirety of direct appellate review is rendered unavailable. The court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition and the Rule 60(b) motion. View "Ross v. Administrator East Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

William Webb, an inmate at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (JTVCC) in Delaware, sued prison officials for failing to schedule court-ordered visits with his daughter. A Delaware family court had granted Webb visitation rights in October 2020, but since then, only one visit occurred in 2021, lasting fifteen minutes and concluding without incident. Webb filed a grievance through the prison’s internal process, which was returned unprocessed. He then wrote to three prison officials but received inadequate responses. Webb, representing himself, filed a lawsuit alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional right to reunification with his daughter.The United States District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed Webb’s complaint under the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2)(B). The court held that Webb failed to exhaust JTVCC’s internal grievance process and did not state a valid constitutional claim. The court also determined that allowing Webb to amend his complaint would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed the timeliness of Webb’s appeal, applying the prison mailbox rule to JTVCC’s electronic filing system. The court held that Webb’s notice of appeal was timely filed when he placed it in the designated mailbox on November 22, 2022. On the merits, the court found that Webb’s complaint did not definitively show a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and plausibly alleged a constitutional claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Webb v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Marla Knudsen and William Dutra, representing a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against MetLife Group, Inc. They alleged that MetLife, as the administrator and fiduciary of the MetLife Options & Choices Plan, misappropriated $65 million in drug rebates from 2016 to 2021. Plaintiffs claimed this misappropriation led to higher out-of-pocket costs for Plan participants, including increased insurance premiums.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete and individualized injury. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had no legal right to the general pool of Plan assets and had not shown that they did not receive their promised benefits. The court found the plaintiffs' claims that they paid excessive out-of-pocket costs to be speculative and lacking factual support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to establish an injury-in-fact, as their allegations of increased out-of-pocket costs were speculative and not supported by concrete facts. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not provide specific allegations showing how the misappropriated drug rebates directly caused their increased costs. The court emphasized that financial harm must be actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical, to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their ERISA claims. View "Knudsen v. MetLife Group Inc" on Justia Law

Two commercial fishermen, Raymond Lofstad and Gus Lovgren, challenged the constitutionality of the appointment process for members of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The Council, which oversees fisheries from New York to Virginia, had approved an amendment lowering the catch limits for certain fish species, which the Secretary of Commerce subsequently approved. The fishermen argued that the Council members, who were not appointed by the President or confirmed by the Senate, exercised significant authority and thus should be considered "Officers of the United States" under the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled against the fishermen, holding that the Council members did not exercise significant authority and were therefore not officers. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, reasoning that the Council's role was merely advisory and did not involve significant authority.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the Council members did exercise significant authority, particularly through their power to veto certain actions by the Secretary of Commerce. The court held that these veto powers made the Council members principal officers who should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To remedy the constitutional violation, the court severed the Council's pocket-veto powers, reducing the members to mere employees who do not require such appointments. The court reversed the District Court's summary judgment for the government and rendered judgment for the fishermen. View "Lofstad v. Secretary United States Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

Roy Lee Williams, a death-row inmate with a history of mental illness, was held in solitary confinement for twenty-six years. Williams filed a lawsuit claiming that his prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) was entitled to qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim and that Williams could not prove deliberate indifference under the ADA.Before the summary judgment, the District Court dismissed Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim. Williams appealed both the summary judgment and the dismissal of his Fourteenth Amendment claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the Secretary had "fair and clear warning" that keeping Williams in solitary confinement without penological justification was unconstitutional, thus rejecting the qualified immunity defense. The court held that it was clearly established that someone with a known preexisting serious mental illness has a constitutional right not to be held in prolonged solitary confinement without penological justification.Regarding the ADA claim, the court found that the District Court erred in concluding that a trier of fact could not find the DOC deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm caused by placing and keeping Williams in solitary confinement despite his mental illness. The court vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment on both the Eighth Amendment and ADA claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Williams' Fourteenth Amendment claim. View "Williams v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The case involves hundreds of plaintiffs who allege that they were injured by the drug Fosamax, manufactured by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Merck), due to inadequate warnings about the risk of atypical femoral fractures. The plaintiffs claim that they would not have taken the drug if they had been properly warned. Merck contends that it proposed a label change to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to address this risk, but the FDA rejected the proposed change due to insufficient scientific support.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of Merck, concluding that the plaintiffs' state law claims were preempted by federal law. The court found that Merck had fully informed the FDA of the justifications for the proposed warning and that the FDA had rejected the proposed label change, thus preempting the state law claims. The court relied on the FDA's Complete Response Letter and other communications to determine that the FDA's rejection was based on a lack of sufficient scientific evidence linking Fosamax to atypical femoral fractures.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the District Court's judgment. The Third Circuit concluded that the District Court erred in its preemption analysis by giving too little weight to the presumption against preemption. The appellate court found that the FDA's Complete Response Letter was ambiguous and that the District Court placed too much reliance on informal FDA communications and an amicus brief to interpret the letter. The Third Circuit emphasized that the presumption against preemption is strong and that Merck did not meet the demanding standard of showing that federal law prohibited it from adding any and all warnings that would satisfy state law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "In re: Fosamax" on Justia Law

Raymond Zaborowski, a U.S. Army veteran suffering from anxiety and PTSD, applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming his conditions have prevented him from working since 2014. An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim, stating that medical evidence indicated he could still perform light work.Zaborowski appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where he consented to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge upheld the ALJ's decision, leading Zaborowski to appeal further.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. Zaborowski argued that the regulation requiring ALJs to explain their decisions violated the Social Security Act, that the ALJ failed to properly explain the supportability and consistency of medical opinions, and that the ALJ's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The Third Circuit reviewed the legal issues de novo and the ALJ's factual findings for substantial evidence.The court held that the regulation complies with the statute, as it requires ALJs to explain the dispositive reasons for their decisions, specifically focusing on supportability and consistency. The court found that the ALJ adequately addressed these factors in her analysis, noting that the opinions of two psychologists were consistent with the record, while the treating psychiatrist's opinion was not. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's decision, including the psychologists' opinions and evidence of Zaborowski's ability to live independently and assist his mother.The Third Circuit affirmed the decision, concluding that the ALJ's denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence and that the regulation did not violate the Social Security Act. View "Zaborowski v. Commissioner Social Security" on Justia Law

United Scrap Metal PA, LLC (USM) was found by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to have engaged in unfair labor practices during a union organizing campaign. Specifically, USM unlawfully changed employees’ work schedules shortly after a unit of employees elected Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 57, as their exclusive collective bargaining representative. The NLRB also overruled USM’s objections to the election result and certified the union. Additionally, USM was found to have unlawfully refused to bargain with and provide information to Local 57.The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that USM violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by instructing employees not to accept union organizing material and by confiscating union shirts. The ALJ also found that USM discriminatorily changed its employees’ work schedules after the representation election. USM argued that the changes were due to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Board found this justification not credible, noting that USM had not cut hours or overtime for most of the pandemic and that the timing of the changes immediately after the election suggested retaliation for union activity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court granted the NLRB’s applications for enforcement and denied USM’s cross-petitions for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that USM engaged in unfair labor practices and that the union election was conducted fairly. The court also agreed with the Board’s decision to overrule USM’s objections to the election and found that USM’s refusal to bargain with the union violated Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the NLRA. The court concluded that the Board’s orders were final and reviewable, and that the Board’s factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence. View "National Labor Relations Board v. United Scrap Metal PA, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the Hertz Corporation and its affiliates, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in May 2020 due to financial difficulties exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Hertz emerged from bankruptcy a year later with a reorganization plan that promised to leave all creditors unimpaired, meaning their rights would not be altered. However, the plan paid unsecured noteholders post-petition interest at the federal judgment rate rather than the higher contract rate and did not include certain make-whole fees (Applicable Premiums) for early redemption of the notes.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware initially ruled that the noteholders were not entitled to the contract rate of interest or the make-whole fees, considering the latter as unmatured interest disallowed under § 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court also ruled that the noteholders were not entitled to early redemption fees on the 2024 notes. The noteholders appealed, arguing that as creditors of a solvent debtor, they were entitled to post-petition interest at the contract rate and the make-whole fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the make-whole fees (Applicable Premiums) must be disallowed as they fit the definition of unmatured interest under § 502(b)(2). However, the court agreed with the noteholders that they were entitled to post-petition interest at the contract rate because Hertz was solvent. The court emphasized the absolute priority rule, which requires that creditors be paid in full before equity holders receive any distribution. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Code incorporates this rule, and thus, the noteholders must receive contract rate interest, including the Applicable Premiums, to comply with the absolute priority rule and fulfill the plan's promise to leave their rights unaltered. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Bankruptcy Court's decisions. View "The Hertz Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Quintez Talley, an incarcerated individual, sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The appellees argued that the "three strikes" provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) barred Talley from proceeding IFP, claiming that three of his previous cases were dismissed on grounds that qualify as strikes under the PLRA. Talley contended that only one of these cases constituted a strike.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Talley's federal claim for failure to state a claim and his medical malpractice claim for not complying with Pennsylvania procedural rules. The court did not dismiss the entire action on strike-qualifying grounds, so this case did not count as a strike. In another case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed Talley's complaint for failure to state a claim but granted him leave to amend. Talley did not amend within the deadline, but the court did not formally close the case before Talley filed his notice of appeal, so this case also did not count as a strike. In a third case, the same court dismissed Talley's claims for failure to state a claim and noted his failure to file a certificate of merit for his medical malpractice claim. This dismissal was on strike-qualifying grounds, making it a strike.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and determined that only one of Talley's previous cases constituted a strike. The court held that the dismissal of the medical malpractice claim for procedural non-compliance did not qualify as a strike, and the case where Talley was given leave to amend but did not do so was not formally closed, thus not a strike. The court granted Talley's motion to proceed IFP, allowing him to appeal without prepaying filing fees. View "Talley v. Pillai" on Justia Law