Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 1998, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded Appellant’s case in light of its decision in Roper v. Simmons, which stated that the death penalty may not be imposed on juvenile offenders under the age of eighteen. The Virginia Supreme Court subsequently commuted Appellant’s sentence to life without the possibility of parole. In 2012, the Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that a mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentence imposed on a homicide offender who was a juvenile at the time of the offense violates the Eighth Amendment. One year later, Appellant sought collateral review of his sentence by filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment because Miller applies retroactively on collateral review. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Miller rule is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. View "Johnson v. Ponton" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant pleaded no contest in a state court to carnal knowledge and soliciting the production of child pornography. Appellant later filed an amended pro se habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The state court dismissed Appellant’s petition without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant had not shown deficient performance. After the state Supreme Court denied Appellant’s petition for appeal, Appellant filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in the federal district court. The court dismissed the petition based on the state court’s reasoning. The Fourth Circuit remanded, holding (1) the district court owed no deference to the state court’s ruling and should have reviewed the state court’s decision de novo; and (2) the district court mistakenly concluded that it had no discretion to grant an evidentiary hearing. Remanded. View "Gordon v. Braxton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit challenging Henrico County's ordinance prohibiting solicitation within county roadways. Plaintiff is homeless and supports himself by soliciting donations in the County. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, concluding that the ordinance is content-neutral and a narrowly tailored time, place, and manner restriction on speech. Plaintiff argued on appeal that the County bears the burden of proof and that the County's evidence was insufficient to establish that the ordinance is narrowly tailored or that it leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. McCullen v. Coakley held that a content-neutral regulation is narrowly tailored if it does not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. McCullen clarified the law governing the evidentiary showing required of a governmental entity seeking to uphold a speech restriction under intermediate scrutiny. Because the parties did not have McCullen's guidance at the time they prepared their cross motions for summary judgment, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded for further factual development and proceedings under McCullen's standard. View "Reynolds v. Middleton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that government officials violated their Fourth Amendment rights by entering curtilage in search of marijuana. The curtilage at issue here is a walk-out basement patio area attached to plaintiffs' home. The court concluded that the district court failed to construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs when it accepted defendants' claim that their searches were reasonable because they entered the curtilage only after viewing one of the plaintiffs from a proper vantage point beyond the home's curtilage. In this case, plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics that defendants violated clearly established law under the Fourth Amendment. On remand, the district court should consider whether Heck v. Humphrey is applicable in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a radio manufacturing and repair business and two of its managers, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance. The ordinance, which governs the placement and display of signs, was enacted by the city to enhance and protect the physical appearance of all areas of the city and to reduce the distractions, obstructions, and hazards to pedestrian and auto traffic. Plaintiffs' challenges to the ordinance relate to a protest of a certain adverse action taken against Central Radio by the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that the sign ordinance is a content-neutral restriction on speech that satisfies intermediate scrutiny. The court found no merit in plaintiffs' remaining constitutional challenges. View "Central Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, alleging claims of a sexually hostile work environment and retaliation. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that the totality of the record creates too close a question as to whether her coworkers' behavior created an objectively hostile or abusive work environment to be decided on summary judgment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue as to whether the employer's proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff was pretext for retaliation and, therefore, affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. View "Walker v. Mod-U-Kraf Homes, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, physicians and abortion providers, filed suit challenging a North Carolina statute that requires physicians to perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions. N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-21.85(b). The court concluded that a heightened intermediate level of scrutiny in this case is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and appropriately recognizes the intersection here of regulation of speech and regulation of the medical profession in the context of an abortion procedure. The Display of Real-Time View Requirement is unconstitutional because it interferes with the physician's right to free speech beyond the extent permitted for reasonable regulation of the medical profession, while simultaneously threatening harm to the patient's psychological health, interfering with the physician's professional judgment, and compromising the doctor-patient relationship. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that section 90-21.85 violates the First Amendment and in enjoining the enforcement of that provision. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Stuart v. Camnitz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against prison doctors and medical staff, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court concluded that plaintiff did not appeal from the district court order dismissing the staff as a party to this case, depriving the court of jurisdiction to review this order. However, the court has jurisdiction over the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the doctors. The court held that while the claim against Dr. Lightsey was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiff has alleged facts supporting a plausible claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Guleria where plaintiff alleged that Dr. Guleria failed to enter the orders necessary to provide him with the promised care. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim against Dr. Guleria and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Lightsey" on Justia Law

Sanya recruited restaurant employees to steal customers’ credit card information, using a device that he provided. With the stolen information, Sanya made counterfeit credit cards, which co-conspirators used to purchase gift cards that were used to buy consumer goods. Co-conspirators returned the goods for cash. In 2012, Sanya pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access-device fraud, was released pending sentencing, and resumed his fraud scheme. He was charged with state crimes, then transferred to federal custody; state charges were dismissed. In 2013, Sanya was indicted for access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft. Sanya’s sentencing for the 2012 plea was postponed, but the parties failed to reach agreement. The district judge expressed his strong preference that Sanya enter a plea to the second set of charges and agree to have all charges consolidated for sentencing. Days later, Sanya pleaded guilty. The charges were consolidated and the same district judge sentenced Sanya to a total of 212 months’ imprisonment. Sanya argued that the district court improperly participated in plea discussions, rendering his second plea invalid. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for assignment to a different judge. View "United States v. Sanya" on Justia Law

The Board of Supervisors of Pittsylvania County, Virginia met twice per month. At the beginning of each meeting, a member of the Board opened the proceedings with an invocation, usually explicitly Christian in nature, and asked the audience to stand for the prayers. Hudson is a non-Christian resident of Pittsylvania County who has attended nearly every Board meeting and alleges that the Christian prayers made her and other non-Christian citizens of Pittsylvania County feel unwelcome. Hudson filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court entered summary judgment for Hudson and permanently enjoined Pittsylvania “from repeatedly opening its meetings with prayers associated with any one religion,” and struck the case from the active docket while retaining jurisdiction. Hudson sought attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $59,679.92.1. A magistrate judge recommended an award of $53,229.92 and the district court adopted the recommendation. Pittsylvania filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), 175 days after the court entered its order. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the merits appeal as untimely and affirmed the award of fees. View "Hudson v. Pittsylvania Cnty, Va." on Justia Law