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

Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Virginia Department of Corrections facilities, filed numerous complaints about repeated physical and sexual abuse he suffered while imprisoned in the facilities. Plaintiff brought suit against various prison officials alleging violations of his right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The magistrate judge found that Defendants should have been more diligent in handling Plaintiff’s complaints but recommended that because Defendants did not actually know of the substantial risk of harm Plaintiff faced, his claims failed. The district court adopted in its entirety the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge. The Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against certain defendants, holding that the magistrate judge and district court failed to appreciate that the subjective “actual knowledge” standard required to find prison officials deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious injury may be proven by circumstantial evidence that a risk was so obvious that it had to have been known. Remanded. View "Makdessi v. Fields" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellants, four individuals, were convicted of multiple offenses arising from a string of robberies they committed in December 2012. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion or violate the Federal Rules of Evidence by admitting certain evidence; (2) assuming the admission of evidence recovered from one appellant’s cell phone violated the Sixth Amendment where not everyone in the phone’s chain of custody testified at trial, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellants on every charged offense. View "United States v. Reed" on Justia Law

A written state policy mandates that all persons sentenced to death in Virginia be confined on “death row” while awaiting execution. Inmates on death row live in separate single cells, with minimal visitation and recreational opportunities. After incarceration on Virginia’s death row for almost six years, Plaintiff brought this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that his confinement on death row violated his procedural Due Process rights and seeking injunctive relief. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff and issued an injunction ordering Virginia prison officials to either alter the policy or to improve the conditions. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding (1) contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, harsh and atypical confinement conditions in and of themselves do not give rise to a liberty interest in their avoidance; and (2) Plaintiff failed to point to a Virginia law or policy providing him with an expectation of avoiding the conditions of his confinement and failed to establish that those conditions imposed an atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. View "Prieto v. Clarke" on Justia Law

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

Beyond Systems, an internet service provider, filed suit against Kraft and Connexus seeking damages under California's and Maryland's anti-spam statutes based upon several hundred e-mails which it alleges were unlawful spam. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that Beyond Systems had Article III standing by claiming a harm: receiving spam e-mail. On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that Beyond Systems is barred from recovery because it consented to the harm underpinning its anti-spam claims. In this case, Beyond Systems created fake e-mail addresses, solely for the purpose of gathering spam; it embedded these addresses in websites so that they were undiscoverable except to computer programs that serve no other function than to find e-mail accounts to spam; it increased its e-mail storage capacity to retain a huge volume of spam; and it intentionally participated in routing spam e-mail between California and Maryland to increase its exposure to spam and thereby allow it to sue under both states' laws. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Beyond Systems v. Kraft Foods" 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

After plaintiff's daughter developed a condition known as dental fluorisis, plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturers of bottled water, infant formula, and baby food that her daughter consumed. At issue was whether federal law, which provides uniform labeling standards for the products at issue, preempts plaintiff's state-law claims. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action, holding that federal law preempts plaintiff's bottled water claims and that her complaint as to the infant formula and baby food products fails to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). View "Nemphos v. Nestle Waters North America" on Justia Law