CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NATHANIEL OGLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OHIO CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 11, AFL-CIO,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-3701
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:18-cv-01227—George C. Smith, District Judge.
Argued: January 30, 2020
Decided and Filed: March 5, 2020
Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Nathaniel Ogle works for the Ohio Department of Taxation. He is not a member of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, the union that represents the Department’s employees in collective bargaining with the State of Ohio. Under state law, the union may require non-members like Ogle to pay “fair share” fees to defray the cost of collective-bargaining activities. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4117.09(C).

Between July 2015 and February 2018, the State deducted these fees from his pay without consent. In July 2018, the Supreme Court held that compulsory “fair share” fees violate the First (and Fourteenth) Amendment free-speech rights of public employees. Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). In the process, the Court overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which had authorized such fees.

A few months later, Ogle filed this § 1983 action against the union on free speech grounds. Through this class-action lawsuit, he seeks a refund of the fees he and others paid from 2015 through 2018.

The union moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that it relied on Abood in good faith when it collected the fees. The district court granted the union’s motion to dismiss. Ogle appealed.

. . .

We affirm



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KEYONTE ASHFORD, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL RABY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-1677
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:18-cv-10813—George Caram Steeh, III, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 5, 2020
Before: MERRITT, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. This case comes down to a matter of perspective. After a car chase, law enforcement used a police dog to remove a driver from his vehicle. From the driver’s perspective, this was an unprovoked attack on a cooperating suspect. From the officer’s perspective, it was the best way to gain control of the situation. The district court granted the officer qualified immunity. Because existing law did not clearly establish that the officer’s perspective was unreasonable, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICHARD E. PAULUS, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-5532
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland.
No. 0:15-cr-00015-1—David L. Bunning, District Judge.
Argued: February 4, 2020
Decided and Filed: March 5, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Richard Paulus was convicted of healthcare fraud and making false statements relating to healthcare matters. Before sentencing, Paulus learned that the government withheld evidence from him on the district court’s orders. On appeal he argues that this withholding violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We agree. Therefore, we VACATE Paulus’s conviction and REMAND for further proceedings.