CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: DANNY HILL,
Movant. |
No. 20-3863 |
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:20-cv-01294—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Argued En Banc: June 14, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE,
STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN,
READLER, DAVIS and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.*
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
NALBANDIAN, J., Circuit Judge. In 1986, Danny Hill was convicted of murder and
sentenced to death in Ohio state court. For 37 years, he’s been challenging his conviction and
sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of a panel of this Court to grant federal
habeas relief. After that, we again granted habeas relief based on different reasoning, and an en
banc panel of this Court vacated that opinion and denied Hill’s petition for relief. With the first
petition unsuccessful, Hill has filed a second habeas petition. It’s “second or successive.” So
Hill must meet the gatekeeping provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEMARI LEPAUL THOMAS-MATHEWS,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-1824 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:21-cr-00124-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Argued: June 15, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2023
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Demari Lepaul Thomas-Mathews appeals his sentence
after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of
drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
VACATES his sentence and REMANDS for resentencing consistent with the opinion of this
Court |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
RANDALL MCELHANEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DUSTIN WILLIAMS; WILLIAM STEPP; NATHAN BROWN;
TIMOTHY MARTIN; JOHN PETTIT; PUTNAM COUNTY,
TENNESSEE SCHOOL SYSTEM,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 22-5903 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville.
No. 2:21-cv-00019—Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Argued: May 1, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2023
Before: GILMAN, READLER, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Youth sports are as much about instilling life
lessons as they are winning and losing. Child athletes can be forgiven for occasionally losing
sight of this bigger picture. But we expect more from their parents.
As this case demonstrates, those expectations are not always met. Randall McElhaney is
an enthusiastic supporter of his daughter, who, when this dispute arose, was an infielder on her
high school softball team. His passion, however, sometimes gets the best of him. When his
daughter was benched, McElhaney sent text messages to her coach criticizing his managerial
decisions. In response, school officials banned McElhaney from attending games for the next
week.
A dispute over the team’s starting infield soon became much more. McElhaney filed this
suit, alleging that school officials retaliated against him for criticizing his daughter’s coach,
speech that McElhaney believed was shielded by the First Amendment. Defendants moved for
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. In their minds, McElhaney was not denied a
constitutional right, let alone one that was clearly established. Reaching only the clearly
established prong of qualified immunity, the district court granted defendants’ motion and
entered judgment in their favor.
As we see things, it is clearly established at a low level of generality that when a school
employee interacts with a student, speech by the student’s parent about those interactions enjoys
First Amendment protection. On that basis, we must reverse the district court. We remand the
case to resolve whether retaliation occurred in the first instance. |
|