CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOSHUA JOSEPH TACKETT,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TONY TRIERWEILER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 19-1037
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:12-cv-15637—Denise Page Hood, Chief District Judge.
Argued: February 5, 2020
Decided and Filed: April 15, 2020
Before: GILMAN, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. In July 2006, a drive-by shooting took place in Ypsilanti, Michigan, during which two people inside a trailer were killed. Four individuals, including Joshua Joseph Tackett, were charged with murder in connection with the killings. Tackett was tried before a Michigan state-court jury and was found guilty on two counts of firstdegree murder and on two counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder convictions.

After going through various state-court proceedings and being denied relief at each stage, Tackett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. He raised a number of claims, including, most notably, that the evidence in his case was insufficient to support his first-degree murder convictions. The district court denied Tackett’s petition. On appeal, five claims are before us, including the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JAMES H. SMITH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN COOK, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 17-4118
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:16-cv-00533—George C. Smith, District Judge.
Argued: June 26, 2019
Decided and Filed: April 15, 2020
Before: SUTTON, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. An Ohio jury convicted James Smith of crimes arising from twelve armed robberies that occurred over a six-month period. After exhausting his remedies in state court, Smith filed a habeas petition in federal district court. The district court rejected Smith’s claims but granted a certificate of appealability on three issues. Having reviewed Smith’s claims, we AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION.
___________________________________________

IN RE: CVS PHARMACY, INC.; OHIO CVS STORES, L.L.C.; DISCOUNT DRUG MART, INC.; GIANT EAGLE INC.; HBC SERVICE COMPANY; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC., dba Mid-Atlantic Customer Support Center; RITE AID OF OHIO, INC.; RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP.; WALGREEN CO.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO., INC.; WALMART, INC.,
Petitioners.
   No. 20-3075
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland;
No. 1:17-md-02804—Dan A. Polster, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 15, 2020
Before: SILER, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The rule of law applies in multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 just as it does in any individual case. Nothing in § 1407 provides any reason to conclude otherwise. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has made clear, every case in an MDL (other than cases for which there is a consolidated complaint) retains its individual character. That means an MDL court’s determination of the parties’ rights in an individual case must be based on the same legal rules that apply in other cases, as applied to the record in that case alone. Within the limits of those rules, of course, an MDL court has broad discretion to create efficiencies and avoid duplication—of both effort and expenditure—across cases within the MDL. What an MDL court may not do, however, is distort or disregard the rules of law applicable to each of those cases.

The rules at issue here are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have the same force of law that any statute does. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, on grounds that, in three instances, the district court has either disregarded or acted in flat contradiction to those Rules. We grant the writ.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANTHONY DAUNT, TOM BARRETT, AARON BEAUCHINE, KATHY BERDEN, STEPHEN DAUNT, GERRY HILDENBRAND, GARY KOUTSOUBOS, LINDA LEE TARVER, PATRICK MEYERS, MARIAN SHERIDAN, MARY SHINKLE, NORM SHINKLE, PAUL SHERIDAN, BRIDGET BEARD, and CLINT TARVER (19-2377); MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY, LAURA COX, TERRI LYNN LAND, SAVINA ALEXANDRA ZOE MUCCI, DORIAN THOMPSON, and HANK VAUPEL (19-2420),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State; COUNT MI VOTE, doing business as Voters Not Politicians,
Defendants-Appellees.
   Nos. 19-2377/2420
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
Nos. 1:19-cv-00614 (19-2377); 1:19-cv-00669 (19-2420)—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: March 17, 2020
Decided and Filed: April 15, 2020
Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. These two appeals arise from challenges filed by individual plaintiffs and the Michigan Republican Party to Michigan’s new Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Commission was established by ballot initiative in the 2018 Michigan general election. The first lawsuit was filed by Michigan citizens who allege that they are unconstitutionally excluded from serving on the Commission due to its eligibility criteria, which prohibit eight classes of individuals with certain current or past political ties from serving as a commissioner. The second lawsuit was filed by the Michigan Republican Party and individual plaintiffs, making the same allegation as the first lawsuit and raising other First Amendment allegations regarding the Commission’s selection process, its composition, and its restrictions on the commissioners’ ability to speak publicly about redistricting matters.

The plaintiffs in both cases moved for preliminary injunctions against the implementation of the Commission. The district court denied these motions, and the plaintiffs have appealed. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.