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

The Second Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that defendant received ineffective assistance because his lawyers did almost nothing to challenge the eyewitness identification testimony that formed the core of the Government's case, even though the identifications bore glaring indicia of unreliability. Furthermore, defendant received ineffective assistance because his counsel did not seek to exclude or object to the admission of a highly prejudicial and dubiously relevant photo of defendant posing with what appears to be a handgun. Because defendant was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance, the court vacated his conviction and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Nolan" on Justia Law

A party who complied with directly controlling Supreme Court precedent in collecting fair-share fees cannot be held liable for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to obtain repayment of fair-share union fees. The court held that, because defendants collected fair share fees in reliance on directly controlling Supreme Court precedent and then-valid state statutes, their reliance was objectively reasonable, and they are entitled to a good-faith defense as a matter of law. The court reviewed plaintiff's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. View "Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights were violated when he was violently assaulted by a fellow inmate while imprisoned, and that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his safety.The Second Circuit held that plaintiff adduced sufficient evidence to raise a question of material fact -- as to whether a substantial risk of inmate attacks was longstanding, pervasive well-documented, or expressly noted by prison officials in the past -- against the Captain and the Warden. In this case, the Inmate Request Forms the Captain and the Warden received were detailed and explicit regarding the threat plaintiff believed another inmate posed. Furthermore, plaintiff orally conveyed his concerns regarding the threat to both the Captain and the Warden. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Captain and the Warden. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to all other defendants, remanding for further proceedings. View "Morgan v. Dzurenda" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit certified a question of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals: Under New York City Civil Court Act 1808, what issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and/or res judicata effects, if any, does a small claims court's prior judgment have on subsequent actions brought in other courts involving the same facts, issues, and/or parties? In particular, where a small claims court has rendered a judgment on a claim, does Section 1808 preclude a subsequent action involving a claim arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or employment relationship? View "Simmons v. Trans Express Inc." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition based on the grounds that it became moot when petitioner was conditionally released from confinement in a state psychiatric institution as a person with a "dangerous mental disorder." The court held that the conditional release did not render the petition moot, because petitioner remains subject to an "order of conditions" that leaves him vulnerable to recommitment, and the imposition of this order was a mandatory consequence of the confinement orders that his petition challenges. View "Janakievski v. Executive Director, Rochester Psychiatric Center" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court agreed with plaintiff that her amended complaint was timely filed, notwithstanding the deficiency notice issued by the court clerk.Nevertheless, the court held that when a plaintiff properly amends her complaint and a defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that is still pending, the district court has the option of either denying the pending motion as moot or evaluating the motion in light of the facts alleged in the amended complaint. In this case, the district court evaluated the motion and properly dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint on the merits because it failed to state a plausible claim for relief. View "Pettaway v. National Recovery Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit certified a question of insurance law to the New York Court of Appeals: Must a general liability insurance carrier defend an insured in an action alleging discrimination under a failure-to-accommodate theory? View "Brooklyn Center for Psychotherapy, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co." on Justia Law

United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), did not undermine, let alone overrule, the Second Circuit's precedent on the validity of 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3). Haymond held that judicial factfinding authorized by a different supervised-release provision, section 3583(k), violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amendment's right to jury trial. The court held that judicial factfinding authorized under section 3583(e)(3) remains lawful. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of revocation following defendant's three violations of supervised release. View "United States v. Doka" on Justia Law

Shareholders of Goldman filed a class action alleging that Goldman and several of its executives committed securities fraud by misrepresenting Goldman's freedom from, or ability to combat, conflicts of interest in its business practices. The district court certified a shareholder class, but the Second Circuit vacated the order in 2018. On remand, the district court certified the class once more.The court affirmed the district court's order on remand, holding that the district court correctly applied the inflation-maintenance theory. The court explained that the inflation-maintenance theory did not require proof of fraud-induced inflation, and that the district court applied the correct standard in concluding that Goldman's share price was inflated. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that Goldman failed to rebut the Basic presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for various tax offenses, including making and subscribing to a false tax return, tax evasion, and attempting to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws. Defendant's charges stemmed from his efforts, over the course of 14 years, to engage in a concerted campaign to obstruct the IRS's efforts to collect his delinquent tax payments and to secure overdue tax returns.The Second Circuit held that the district court lacked authority to require restitution payments to begin immediately following defendant's sentencing. However, the court held that, in assessing tax loss under USSG 2T1.1 application note 1, the district court was permitted to rely on uncharged relevant conduct constituting "willful evasion of payment" in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7201 and "willful failure to pay" in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7203. The court held that defendant's remaining claims were unavailing and affirmed the judgment as modified. View "United States v. Adams" on Justia Law