Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against several groups of defendants for malicious prosecution, due process violations, the use of excessive force, and municipal liability. In this case, plaintiff was arrested and charged with murder in January 2011, and he was detained at Rikers Island until a jury acquitted him of all charges in June 2014. Three incidents are relevant to the instant appeal: a correction officer's takedown of plaintiff; a strip search of plaintiff for illegal contraband; and plaintiff's involvement in an incident where inmates refused to leave the recreation yard. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the complaint.The Second Circuit concluded that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and one of his excessive force claims, but the district court erred in dismissing his due process claim and two of his excessive force claims. The court also concluded that the district court should address the merits of plaintiff's municipal liability claim in the first instance. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, remanding for further proceedings. View "Frost v. New York City Police Department" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's 24-month sentence following a violation of supervised release, holding that calculation of the term of imprisonment under USSG 7B1.1(a)(1)(B) includes state law enhancements that increase the maximum penalty for recidivists. Therefore, defendant's crime of second-degree manslaughter was "punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding twenty years" – a Grade A violation under section 7B1.1(a)(1)(B).The court also concluded that the district court did not err in calculating the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and disagreed with defendant's assertions that the district court committed other procedural errors during the sentencing hearing. In this case, defendant's procedural challenges essentially reduce down to two main points: the district court based its sentencing decision on improper evidence and the district court primarily sentenced her based on the severity of her state offense and not her breach of trust. The court concluded that neither of these arguments has merit. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

These appeals challenge Governor Andrew Cuomo's issuance of an executive order directing the New York State Department of Health to identify yellow, orange, and red "zones" based on the severity of COVID-19 outbreaks and imposing correspondingly severe restrictions on activity within each zone. Appellants, Agudath Israel and the Diocese, each challenged the executive order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. After the district court denied appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the order, appellants moved for emergency injunctions pending appeal and to expedite their appeals.Preliminarily, the Second Circuit concluded that Agudath Israel did not move first in the district court for an order granting an injunction while an appeal is pending before filing with this court its present motion for an injunction pending appeal. Rather, Agudath Israel moved for a preliminary injunction pending the district court’s final judgment. Furthermore, Agudath Israel has not explained or otherwise justified its failure to comply with the straightforward requirement of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a). Agudath Israel has also failed to demonstrate that moving first in the district court would be impracticable, or even futile, particularly in light of the fact that a full eleven days elapsed after the district court's ruling before Agudath Israel sought relief from this court. Therefore, the court denied Agudath Israel's motion for procedural reasons.The court also denied the Diocese's motion, concluding that appellants cannot clear the high bar necessary to obtain an injunction pending appeal. The court stated that, while it is true that the challenged order burdens appellants' religious practices, the order is not substantially underinclusive given its greater or equal impact on schools, restaurants, and comparable secular public gatherings. To the contrary, the executive order extends well beyond isolated groups of religious adherents to encompass both secular and religious conduct. View "Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

Respondents appeal the district court's grant of an application for discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 1782 brought by petitioner. The application relates to complex litigation stemming from the sinking of an oil tanker captained by petitioner off the coast of Spain. Petitioner cross-appeals, arguing that the district court should have refrained from entering final judgment and instead maintained the case on its active docket to facilitate further uses of the discovery materials.The Second Circuit concluded that petitioner's cross-appeal, unlike respondents' appeal, no longer presents a live case or controversy and is therefore moot. The court also concluded that the district court erred by failing to conduct a choice-of-law analysis with respect to applicable privileges and in analyzing whether one of the proceedings cited by petitioner as a basis for his application was within reasonable contemplation. Therefore, the court dismissed the cross-appeal and vacated the district court's judgment. The court remanded for further proceedings and ordered respondents to refrain from destroying or altering any records, materials, or documents that may reasonably be considered to be subject to discovery pursuant to the section 1782 applications at issue in this case until July 30, 2021, unless otherwise directed by an order of a United States court. View "Mangouras v. Boggs" on Justia Law

In a challenge to the State of New York's 2011 reduction, through the amendment of a state statute and regulation, of its contribution rates to retired former state employees' health insurance premiums, the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: (1) Under New York state law, and in light of Kolbe v. Tibbetts, 22 N.Y.3d 344 (2013), M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 574 U.S. 427 (2015), and CNH Indus. 5 N.V. v. Reese, 138 S. Ct. 761 (2018), do 9.13 (setting forth contribution rates of 90% and 75%), 9.23(a) (concerning contribution rates for surviving dependents of deceased retirees), 9.24(a) (specifying that retirees may retain NYSHIP coverage in retirement), 9.24(b) (permitting retirees to use sick-leave credit to defray premium costs), and 9.25 (allowing for the indefinite delay or suspension of coverage or sick-leave credits) of the 2007-2011 collective bargaining agreement between the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. and the Executive Branch of the State of New York ("the CBA"), singly or in combination, (1) create a vested right in retired employees to have the State's rates of contribution to health-insurance premiums remain unchanged during their lifetimes, notwithstanding the duration of the CBA, or (2) if they do not, create sufficient ambiguity on that issue to permit the consideration of extrinsic evidence as to whether they create such a vested right? (2) If the CBA, on its face, or as interpreted at trial upon consideration of extrinsic evidence, creates a vested right in retired employees to have the State's rates of contribution to health-insurance premiums remain unchanged during their lives, notwithstanding the duration of the CBA, does New York's statutory and regulatory reduction of its contribution rates for retirees' premiums negate such a vested right so as to preclude a remedy under state law for breach of contract? View "Donohue v. Cuomo" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed Defendants Scott and Santiago's convictions for their role in the assault of an inmate at the Downstate Correctional Facility and its subsequent cover-up. Defendants were former correction officers with the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision.The court held that there is no set time for a conspiracy to form under 18 U.S.C. 241, for conspiracy to violate civil rights, so long as the surrounding facts and circumstances support the existence of an agreement. The court also held that a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1519 for falsifying records does not require knowledge of an impending federal investigation. Furthermore, the court found that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case. It is clear that the statute was not vague as applied to Scott's conduct, which involved the filing of a false injury report and the orchestration of false use-of-force reports and photographs designed to mislead prison administrators and others into believing that the inmate was the aggressor, as opposed to the victim of a brutal assault. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed Defendants Requena and Raymond's conviction for one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance analogue. Defendants were convicted under the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act, which provides that substances with chemical and pharmacological properties "substantially similar" to those of substances listed on schedule I or II are treated for the purposes of federal law as controlled substances.The court held that the Analogue Act's instruction to treat a substance with chemical and pharmacological properties “substantially similar” to those of a scheduled substance as a controlled substance in schedule I is not unconstitutionally vague on its face, certain Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government's expert to testify; the district court correctly instructed the jury that it need not unanimously agree on which of the six synthetic cannabinoids charged in the indictment meet the statutory definition of a controlled substance analogue; the district court made all of the factual findings necessary to calculate defendants' base offense level at sentencing; and, because defendants are entitled to no relief in connection with their drug conviction, their money laundering conviction likewise stands. View "United States v. Requena" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for charges related to his operation of an illegal payday-loan scheme. The jury found that defendant violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and federal wire fraud and identity theft statutes from 2004 through 2014.As to the RICO counts, the court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred as a matter of law by instructing the jury that, as to his business's loans to New York borrowers, New York usury laws governed the transaction rather than the laws of the jurisdictions specified in the loan agreements, which set no interest rate caps. Rather, the court ruled that New York law applies and that the district court was correct when it so instructed the jury. As to the TILA conviction, the court rejected defendant's contention that his loan agreements disclosed the "total of payments" borrowers would make, as TILA requires, and that the evidence was insufficient to show that these disclosures were inaccurate. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's guilty verdict under TILA. The court rejected defendant's remaining contentions, finding them unpersuasive. View "United States v. Moseley" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for creating a "loud or unusual noise or a nuisance" in the courthouse, in violation of 41 C.F.R. 102-74.390(a) (the "Noise Regulation"). Defendant's conviction stemmed from her engagement in a loud argument with a court security officer in the lobby of the Binghamton courthouse.The court concluded that defendant forfeited her challenge to the conspicuous posting of the Noise Regulation by not raising the argument on appeal to the district court. The court also concluded that, under United States v. Weintraub, 273 F.3d 139, 147 (2d Cir. 2001), the Noise Regulation carries only a general intent requirement, and that the evidence supports that defendant acted with this mens rea. Finally, the court determined that the Noise Regulation is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant's conduct. View "United States v. Wasylyshyn" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of bank fraud based on a conditional guilty plea. Defendant argued that the 11-year delay between his 2007 indictment and 2018 arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.The court applied the Barker factors and held that the district court did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In this case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the delay was attributable to defendant fleeing to Brazil in 2006 to avoid prosecution; the government exercised reasonable diligence in determining whether defendant returned to the United States despite its failure to detect his periodic travel into and out of the United States from 2012 until his arrest in 2018, and defendant has shown no prejudice from the delay. Furthermore, the district court properly balanced the Barker factors in concluding that the delay, though lengthy, did not violate the Sixth Amendment. View "United States v. Debarros Cabral" on Justia Law