Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed pro se an order dismissing his complaint against defendants for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff alleged that medical care providers, Christopher Aiken and Dr. James Hohensee, at the Niagara County Jail, were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical needs during his incarceration at the jail. Plaintiff also appealed from a judgment dismissing his claims against the remaining defendants, alleging that excessive force on the part of corrections officers, Paul Curcione, Jeff Chawer, and Sergeant Tammy Williams. The court held that plaintiff's complaint fell short of alleging a deliberate indifference on the part of Nurse Practitioner Aikin and Dr. Hohensee to his serious medical needs. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed the complaint without leave to amend where issues of medical judgment could not be the basis of a deliberate indifference claim where evidence of deliberate indifference was lacking. The court also held that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Williams for plaintiff's failure to exhaust the requisite administrative review process as to Williams. The court further held that the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a), was satisfied by an untimely filing of a grievance if it was accepted and decided on the merits by the appropriate prison authority. Therefore, plaintiff had met the exhaustion requirement of his original filing and the district court's contrary determination was erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings.

Defendant, James Gansman, appealed from a judgment convicting him of insider trading under the so-called "misappropriation theory." At issue was whether the district court erred in declining to adopt an instruction proposed by Gansman setting forth a theory of the defense based in part on SEC Rule 10b5-2, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b5-2. The court held that Gansman was entitled to assert a defense theory that he did not have the requisite intent to commit securities fraud, and that in defining the nature of his relationship with Donna Murdoch, a woman with whom he was having an affair, to the jury, he had the right to use language found in Rule 10b5-2. The court held that, nevertheless, Gansman was not entitled to a new trial in the circumstances presented because the slightly modified instruction given by the district court was legally sufficient. Gansman raised a number of other challenges to his conviction, all of which were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1), and (a)(5)(B). The district court sentenced defendant to 121 months' imprisonment and ordered him to pay restitution to finance future counseling costs of one of the victims depicted in the images and videos. On appeal, defendant challenged the restitution order and his sentence. The court agreed with defendant that, based on the facts in this case, defendant's possession of the victim's images was no a substantial factor in causing her loss. The court held, however, that the district court committed no procedural or substantive error in imposing the sentence of imprisonment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Plaintiff, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility (Great Meadow), filed suit, pro se, in district court against three Great Meadow employees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he had been improperly denied access to medically-prescribed therapeutic diets, resulting in violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Plaintiff, subsequently represented by counsel, appealed the revocation of his in forma pauperis status, as well as the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment to one of the defendants, James Pagano. The court held that, based on its recent decision in Mills v. Fischer, any action dismissed on the ground of absolute prosecutorial immunity was presumed "frivolous" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). The court also held that the remainder of plaintiff's arguments on appeal were without merit. Accordingly, the orders of the district court revoking plaintiff's in forma pauperis status and granting Pagano summary judgment were affirmed.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction where he and his co-defendant were found guilty of two counts of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine and one count of attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. At issue was whether the district court properly admitted a portion of a recorded telephone call that defendant made while incarcerated, because he argued that the communication was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant was unable to prove that his communication was made in confidence, given his knowledge that his calls were being recorded by the Bureau of Prisons and his ability to communicate directly with his attorney in the absence of any monitoring. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision to admit defendant's telephone call.

Six defendants appealed from their convictions for a variety of weapons trafficking offenses. On appeal, the court addressed three of the many issues raised by defendants, finding, after due consideration, their remaining arguments lacked merit. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support all of the convictions and rejected a vagueness-as-applied argument raised by one defendant (Kharabadze). The court held, however, that the district court employed the wrong standard of proof at sentencing in imposing increases to another defendant's (Solomonyan) base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(E) and (b)(3)(A). Therefore, the court vacated that defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Defendant was convicted of eleven counts of a thirteen count indictment, including several Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), violations predicated on robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. On appeal, defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the stipulation at issue was insufficient to establish the requisite jurisdictional element. The court held that the evidence proffered by the government was sufficient to sustain the interstate elements of the Hobbs Act attempted robbery count at issue where the stipulation entered into by the parties, that "marijuana [wa]s grown outside of the state of New York and travel[ed] in interstate and foreign commerce to arrive in the New York City area[,]" conveyed the same information about the interstate nature of the marijuana trade as the court's precedents. The court also held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where, given the ample evidence, a rational juror could find that defendant's conduct went far beyond "mere preparation" and constituted a "substantial step" toward commission of a robbery. The court considered all of defendant's other arguments and found them to be without merit and therefore, affirmed the judgment of the district court in its entirety.

Thirteen present and former female inmates of various New York state prisons appealed from the dismissal of their class action complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief compelling the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) to alter its practices and procedures so as to enhance the protection of the class from sexual assault, abuse, and harassment. The complaint also asserted individual claims for damages. The dismissal was based on the grounds that some of the claims of named plaintiffs were moot and that the remaining named plaintiffs had failed to exhaust available remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e. The court held that it lacked pendant appellate jurisdiction over the damages claims. The court also held that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief by plaintiffs who were now free but were in DOCs custody when they brought suit were not moot. The court applied a relation-back theory and determined that plaintiffs' class claims were capable of repetition, yet evading review. The court further held that three plaintiffs have exhausted applicable internal prison grievance proceedings while the remaining ten have not. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the district court convicting him of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. The district court imposed a sentencing enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) for the discharge of the weapon, even though it was the intended victim, and not defendant, who fired the gun. Defendant contended that because he did not possess the gun when it was discharged, the district court erred in applying the enhancement. The court held that the district court correctly held that defendant was subject to the discharge enhancement where, as here, defendant possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug-related crime and the firearm was discharged during the course of that crime. Therefore, by its plain terms, the statute applied. The court also held that when a defendant possessed a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, the risk of an intended victim trying to seize the gun was just as real as an accidental discharge and that defendant's reliance on United States v. Daija was unavailing. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

This case stemmed from the sexual assault of plaintiff by a male sheriff's deputy while she was being held in pretrial confinement at the Erie County Holding Center. At issue was whether plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence of municipal liability for this violation of due process to support a jury verdict returned in her favor against Erie County and its then-policy maker, former County Sheriff Patrick Gallivan. The court held that defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on a municipal liabilities claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court also held that defendants were not entitled to a new trial because the errors they asserted in Question Two of the special verdict form and the verdict itself were not properly preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of defendants on the 1983 claim was reversed and the case remanded with instructions to enter judgment on that claim consistent with the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff.