Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s contract and tort claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that the federal court in Puerto Rico lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.Plaintiff, a Puerto Rico tour company, brought this diversity suit in the United States District of Puerto Rico, alleging that a California youth soccer organization and related defendants breached duties that the organization owed to Plaintiff under Puerto Rico contract and tort law. The allegations centered around Defendants’ acts of first requesting that Plaintiff make an offer for a potential soccer trip to Puerto Rico for some of the organization’s teams and their families and then declining after further communications to book the tour. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the exercise of specific jurisdiction in the forum over the out-of-forum defendants did not conform to the federal constitutional test. View "PREP Tours, Inc. v. American Youth Soccer Organization" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence without prejudice to his right to raise his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a collateral proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, holding that Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim ought not to be aired for the first time on direct appeal.Defendant pleaded guilty to violating the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and was sentenced to a 327-month term of immurement. On appeal, Defendant argued for the first time that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that this case did not qualify for an exception to the general rule that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must first be raised in the district court. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Appellant’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the petition.In his petition, Appellant challenged his convictions under Massachusetts law for murder and other offenses, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court denied relief. Because Appellant’s case was adjudicated on the merits in state court, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA) highly deferential standard of review applied. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of habeas relief, holding that any error on the part of counsel was not unsustainable under AEDPA’s deferential review standard. View "Walker v. Medeiros" on Justia Law

In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 case, the First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Kathy Bergeron, a corrections officer, holding that no reasonable juror could conclude that Bergeron was deliberately indifferent to the health and safety of Plaintiff, an inmate, under the Eighth Amendment based on the facts presented by Plaintiff.Plaintiff was severely beaten by other inmates in a cell at a medium-security prison. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Bergeron was deliberately indifferent while doing a round, leading to a delay in his being provided with medical treatment, which exacerbated his injuries. The district court granted summary judgment for Bergeron. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to produce enough evidence for a jury to conclude that Bergeron had the requisite culpable state of mind of deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s need for medical care. View "Leite v. Goulet" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress and affirmed Defendant’s conviction of one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding (1) there was no basis on which to grant Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) there was no error in Defendant’s conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the handgun at issue because it was discovered during an unconstitutional search of his vehicle. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s vehicle was not unconstitutional, and therefore, the weapon was not the fruit of an unlawful search and did not require suppression; and (2) Defendant’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of his knowing and intentional possession of the weapon. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and dismissed in part Defendant’s interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of her motion for summary judgment arguing that she was immune to Plaintiff’s damage claims, holding that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to the extent Defendant challenged the district court’s assessment of the record.Defendant, a police officer, shot Plaintiff as Plaintiff was cutting himself with a knife in the waiting area of a psychiatric center. Plaintiff sued Defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arguing that Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Defendant moved for summary judgment based, in part, on her qualified immunity to federal damage claims arising out of the performance of her official duties as a public employee. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Defendant could not constitutionally shoot Plaintiff unless he posed an immediate threat to herself or others and only after providing some kind of warning, if feasible. Defendant appealed. The First Circuit (1) dismissed the appeal to the extent it challenged the district court’s assessment of the factual record under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; and (2) otherwise affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. View "Begin v. Drouin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs’ claims that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute, as implemented in the communities of Boston and Brookline, violates the Second Amendment, holding that the statute bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests.Plaintiffs sought and received licenses to carry firearms in public, but the licenses allowed Plaintiffs to carry firearms only in relation to certain specified activities, denying them the right to carry firearms more generally. Plaintiff argued that the Massachusetts firearms licensing statute violates the Second Amendment. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the statute bears a substantial relationship to important governmental interests in promoting public safety and crime prevention without offending Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights. View "Gould v. Morgan" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim and dismissing Plaintiff’s Massachusetts state law negligence claim without prejudice, holding that the district court’s judgment was without error.Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Massachusetts Correctional Institute-Framingham, sued Dr. Thomas Groblewski and the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare in federal district court, bringing a state law claim for common law negligence and a federal law claim under section 1983 for a violation of her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The district court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Groblewski acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim. View "Zingg v. Groblewski" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction of one counts of stalking in violation 18 U.S.C. 2216A, holding that Defendant’s constitutional challenge was unsuccessful, there was no error in the district court’s jury instructions, and sufficient evidence supported the conviction.On appeal, Defendant brought a First Amendment challenge to the federal anti-stalking statute, arguing that section 2261A(2)(B) is facially overbroad and a content-based restriction on speech that does not survive strict scrutiny. The First Circuit disagreed as to this issue and the remaining issues Defendant raised on appeal, holding (1) Defendant’s First Amendment challenge to the statute was unavailing; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a unanimity instruction or in giving jury instructions that precisely tracked the statute’s wording; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction. View "United States v. Ackell" on Justia Law

At issue was whether it is appropriate to use the categorical approach in determining what is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(b).The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion, before he entered a conditional plea of guilty to using, carrying, or brandishing a firearm in relation to a “crime of violence” in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1), to dismiss a portion of the charge on the ground that the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018). The First Circuit held that section 924(c)(3)(B) is not void for vagueness because the statute reasonably allows for a case-specific approach rather than a categorical approach and because Appellant’s conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery qualified as a “crime of violence.” View "United States v. Douglas" on Justia Law