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

Defendant filed a notice of appeal more than three years after he was sentenced for two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer. The Second Circuit held that United States v. Fuller, 332 F.3d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 2003), was inapplicable in this case, because it was unclear whether defendant could have filed a timely petition for habeas relief in the district court at the time he filed his untimely notice of appeal with this court. Therefore, the court dismissed defendant's appeal as untimely, and remanded to the district court with instructions to convert his notice of appeal into a petition for habeas relief, assessing whether such petition would be timely under 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(4). View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The BIA must consider the principles of equitable tolling when an untimely appeal is filed and the petitioner raises the issue.The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision refusing to accept petitioner's untimely appeal of an IJ's order of removal from Ghana. The court held that the BIA erred in refusing to consider whether the argument that the appeal deadline, which is nonjurisdictional, is subject to an equitable tolling exception. The court found that the appeal deadline is a claim‐processing rule amenable to equitable tolling and thus remanded to the BIA to develop standards for equitable tolling, determining whether petitioner qualified for such relief. View "Attipoe v. Barr" on Justia Law

The collection of the communications of United States persons incidental to the lawful surveillance of non-United States persons located abroad does not violate the Fourth Amendment and, to the extent that the government's inadvertent targeting of a United States person led to collection of defendant's communications, he was not harmed by that collection.The Second Circuit held that there was insufficient information in either the classified or the public record in this case to permit the court to determine whether any such querying was reasonable and therefore permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hasbajrami" on Justia Law

The government petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to preclude defense counsel from arguing nullification and to exclude any evidence of sentencing consequences. In this case, respondent was charged with production of child pornography. The district court granted respondent's request to argue jury nullification, but reserved decision on the admissibility of evidence regarding the sentencing consequences of a conviction.The Second Circuit held that the conditions for mandamus relief were satisfied with respect to the district court's nullification ruling, but not with respect to the admissibility of evidence of sentencing consequences. In this case, the court could not rule out the possibility that the admissibility of sentencing consequences will depend at lest in part on events that will unfold at trial. Therefore, in these circumstances and in light of the second Cheney condition, the court held that the district court's decision to defer ruling on the admissibility of sentencing consequences until after the commencement of trial was not clearly and indisputably outside the range of permissible decisions. Accordingly, the court denied the government's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to preclude the introduction at trial of any evidence related to sentencing consequences, without prejudice to renewal following the district court's ultimate ruling on the motion to preclude. View "United States v. Manzano" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss after the Court of Appeals answered the certified question. In light of the Court of Appeals' holding that section 230(11)(b) of the New York Public Health Law does not create a private right of action for bad faith and malicious reporting to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct to the New York Court of Appeals, the court held that plaintiff's section 230(11)(b) claim was properly dismissed. View "Haar v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Conn. Genn. Stat. 4‐183(c) supplies an "explicit time limitation" of forty‐five days for appeals of final agency decisions under section 1415(i)(2)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint under the IDEA as time-barred. In this case, plaintiffs waited ninety days to commence their action and thus the district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case. View "P.M.B. v. Ridgefield Board of Education" on Justia Law

Atlantic sought a declaratory judgment that the insurance policy it had issued to Coastal was void ab initio or, in the alternative, that there was no coverage for the loss of the barge or damage to an adjacent pier. District Court Judge Wexler passed away prior to issuing his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The case was transferred to Judge Azrack, who, after no party requested the recall of any witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63, issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in her role as successor judge and entered judgment finding Atlantic liable to Coastal under the terms of the policy.Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), factual findings of successor judges who have certified their familiarity with the record are subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. The Second Circuit also held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 63, a successor judge is under no independent obligation to recall witnesses unless requested by one of the parties. In this case, the court found no reversible error in Judge Azrack's findings of fact and conclusions of law, including findings that Coastal did not breach its duty of uberrimae fidei, and thus the policy was not void; Atlantic failed to prove that the vessel was unseaworthy; the loss of the vessel was due to a "peril of the sea" and was covered by the policy; Coastal was entitled to damages for contractual payments withheld by its contractor for repairs to a pier; and Coastal proved its damages using only a summary spreadsheet of invoices, as evidence. View "Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. Coastal Environmental Group Inc." on Justia Law

Notwithstanding a district court's release order pursuant to the Bail Reform Act (BRA), the government has the authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to detain a criminal defendant who is an alien in the course of an administrative removal proceeding.The Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of an indictment against defendant with prejudice. The court held that the district court's bail release order under the BRA did not preclude the government from detaining defendant under the INA as an inadmissible alien subject to removal. The court found defendant's arguments to the contrary unavailing. View "United States v. Lett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Defendants Eric and Bryan VanBramer violated his constitutional rights by, inter alia, subjecting him to a visual body cavity search incident to arrest. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity.The Second Circuit vacated in part, holding that visual body cavity searches must be justified by specific, articulable facts supporting reasonable suspicion that an arrestee is secreting contraband inside the body cavity to be searched. In this case, because this requirement was established by sufficiently persuasive authority, it was "clearly established" for purposes of a qualified immunity defense by New York state police officers at the time Eric searched plaintiff. The court also held that disputed facts precluded a finding of reasonable suspicion on a motion for summary judgment, and remanded for trial on the merits of plaintiff's claim and the issue of whether Eric was entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed in part, holding that plaintiff failed to present evidence indicating that Bryan was aware that Eric was conducting, or was going to conduct, the visual body cavity search. View "Sloley v. VanBramer" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to plead, with the requisite particularity, securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5.In light of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and binding circuit precedent, the court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint. The court held that the law is well established that a party, when making securities fraud allegations on information and belief, must plead material misstatements and omissions with particularity. The court further clarified that if statements were rendered false or misleading through the nondisclosure of illegal activity, the facts of those underlying illegal acts must also be pleaded with particularity. In this case, the complaint alleged that defendants, producers of chicken, engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy, the nondisclosure of which rendered various statements and SEC filings false and misleading. The court held that plaintiffs have failed to allege the details of the underlying antitrust conspiracy with particularity. View "Gamm v. Sanderson Farms, Inc." on Justia Law