CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JAMES MAMMONE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee. |
No. 20-3069 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:16-cv-00900—James G. Carr, District Judge.
Argued: July 19, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 21, 2022
Before: GIBBONS, ROGERS, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. James Mammone, a death-row prisoner in
Ohio, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Mammone raises four issues on appeal: whether pretrial publicity was so prejudicial that
he did not receive a fair trial; whether the jurors unconstitutionally prayed before penalty-phase
deliberations; whether trial counsel was ineffective; and whether appellate counsel was
ineffective. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the denial of habeas relief. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES H. GRIFFITH, JR., dba CJ’s Sports Bar; LISA
LESLEY,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-6088 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:20-cv-00382—Travis Randall McDonough, District Judge.
Argued: August 10, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 21, 2022
Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“JHP”) appeals the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants James H. Griffith and Lisa Lesley
(collectively, “Defendants”) in this copyright infringement suit brought under the Copyright Act,
17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith, No. 20-cv-382, 2021 WL
4899466, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2021). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the
district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and REMAND with
instructions to grant Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to copyright standing
and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
ANDREW WILLIAMS BANNISTER, deceased, by his CoAdministrators Ad Litem, Candace C. Bannister and
Mark E. Bannister,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KNOX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; KNOX COUNTY,
TENNESSEE; KNOX COUNTY TENNESSEE SCHOOLS;
RYAN J. SIEBE; KIMBERLY H. GRAY; ANTHONY B.
NORRIS; ERIN A. ASHE; BRIAN A. HARTSELL,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 21-5732 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:18-cv-00188—Travis Randall McDonough, District Judge.
Argued: March 16, 2022
Decided and Filed: September 21, 2022
Before: SILER, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. During his sophomore year of high school, Andrew (“Will”)
Bannister tragically committed suicide. Will’s parents, Candace and Mark Bannister, have
sought to hold his school’s administrators liable for allegedly imposing discriminatory discipline
that they say led Will to take his life. For years, however, their suit has failed to make it past the
pleading stage. The suit bounced back and forth between state court and federal court as their
initial attorney disclaimed raising federal claims while their next attorney asserted claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. The belated federal
claims themselves have substantially evolved between the briefing in the district court (which
dismissed them on statute-of-limitations grounds) and the briefing in this court. For the most
part, therefore, we find that the Bannisters have forfeited their current arguments that they timely
filed these claims. This case thus highlights the risks for counsel who do not develop a coherent
legal theory at the outset of their case and who instead continuously adopt new arguments when
problems emerge with their old ones. That approach not only delays the case’s outcome for their
clients but also increases the chances that their clients will lose on something other than the
merits. We affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JAMES KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
Defendants,
DOUGLAS BROWNBACK; TODD ALLEN,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 17-2101 |
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:16-cv-00343—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 21, 2022
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case dealing with the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
judgment bar is on remand from the Supreme Court, and we must determine whether our
published holding in Harris v. United States, 422 F.3d 322 (6th Cir. 2005), should be overruled
based on language in three subsequent Supreme Court cases. We squarely held in Harris that the
FTCA judgment bar applies to other claims brought in the same action, including claims brought
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971). Harris has not been overruled by later precedent and, as a binding decision of this court,
requires that we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s remaining claims. |
|