CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DEANNA JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-2032
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-10167—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2021
Decided and Filed: September 2, 2021
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff DeAnna Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) on her racial harassment and racially hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and striking portions of her declaration. Because the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Ford and abused its discretion in striking a portion of Johnson’s declaration, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DANIEL L. DOUCETTE (20-5592); SHERRY DENISE TAYLOR (20-5632),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   Nos. 20-5592/5632
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.
Doucette: No. 7:16-cv-00075—Danny C. Reeves, District Judge;
Taylor: No. 7:18-cv-00071—Joseph M. Hood, District Judge.
Argued: July 28, 2021
Decided and Filed: September 2, 2021
Before: GUY, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

In these consolidated cases, plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees from the federal government under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Both district courts awarded fees, but not in the amounts requested. Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that one district court erred by holding that the EAJA does not authorize fees for work performed after the judgment becomes final and that both district courts abused their discretions by awarding below-market hourly rates. We agree on both points, so we vacate the district courts’ fee awards and remand.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: KAREEM JACKSON,
Movant.
   No. 21-3102
On Motion for Leave to File a Second or Successive
Habeas Corpus Petition and On Motion to Remand.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus;
No. 2:20-cv-03934—Algenon L. Marbley, Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 2, 2021
Before: BOGGS, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

Kareem Jackson, an Ohio death-row prisoner represented by counsel, has filed two motions. He requests leave to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). He also moves the Court to remand his pending petition to the district court, arguing that his petition is not “second or successive” such that his claims must meet the requirements of § 2244(b). For the following reasons, Jackson’s motion to remand is DENIED; his application for permission to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition is GRANTED.