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.