CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JERONIQUE D. CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TIM SHOOP, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   Nos. 11-3005/20-3429
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:06-cv-00167—Patricia A. Gaughan, District Judge.
Argued: May 12, 2021
Decided and Filed: January 10, 2022
Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Jeronique Cunningham and his half-brother Cleveland Jackson robbed and shot several friends and their family members. A three-year-old girl, Jala Grant, and a seventeen-year-old woman, Leneshia Williams, were killed; six others were injured. Cunningham was indicted and tried on two aggravated-murder counts, an aggravated-robbery count, and six attempted-aggravated-murder counts. The aggravated-murder charges carried death-penalty and firearms specifications. Cunningham and Jackson were tried separately. The jury found Cunningham guilty on all counts and specifications and sentenced him to death. See State v. Cunningham (Cunningham II), 824 N.E.2d 504, 510–13 (Ohio 2004).

We consider eight issues in this habeas case. The first and second issues are juror-bias claims involving Cunningham’s jury foreperson Nichole Mikesell. Cunningham argues that Mikesell’s colleagues at the county’s children-services agency improperly relayed external information about Cunningham to her. He also argues that Mikesell’s relationship with the victims’ families affected the jury’s impartiality. He seeks a hearing to investigate jury bias on both fronts. Third, we consider whether Cunningham’s counsel ineffectively failed to investigate and present mitigating evidence. Fourth, we review whether Cunningham’s trial counsel ineffectively failed to investigate, obtain, and present expert testimony about ballistics. Fifth, we evaluate whether the trial court improperly restricted Cunningham’s ability to question prospective jurors during voir dire. Sixth, we decide whether the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must determine Cunningham’s personal culpability before imposing a death sentence. Seventh, we determine whether the prosecution improperly failed to turn over witness statements to the defense. Finally, we consider whether the prosecution made improper closing arguments during the guilt and sentencing phases. CA6 No. 11-3005 R. 50 (7/27/11 Order at 2); R. 71 (10/13/11 Order at 1); R. 187 (7/28/20 Order at 3).

We cannot grant Cunningham relief for issues three through eight. But we conclude that Cunningham is entitled to proceed on his juror-bias claims. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND so that the district court can conduct an evidentiary hearing to investigate juror bias.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ALI EL-KHALIL, DPM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., dba Beaumont Hospital – Taylor,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 21-2669
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-12822—Laurie J. Michelson, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: January 10, 2022
Before: COLE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Decision or discovery? This case is about which of those events triggers the statute of limitations for a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The district court, in keeping with the statutory text and the traditional rule, concluded that Dr. Ali El-Khalil’s claim was time barred because the limitations period commenced when Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. decided not to renew El-Khalil’s medical-staff privileges, rather than when it notified El-Khalil of that decision five days later. We agree and AFFIRM.