In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of the defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's grant of a new trial based on the second ground, that even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) plaintiff's argument that the district court erred in granting a new trial because defendant failed to press the district court for a ruling on this motion after it initially and erroneously ruled the motion was moot is rejected.   

Read Jennings v. Jones, No. 08-2117

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Decided November 19, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, and Gajarsa and Lipez, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:     Charles M. Bradley

For Appellee:   Rebecca Tedford Partington, Deputy Chief, Civil Division, John Moreira, Special Assistant Attorney General

In plaintiffs' civil rights case against the members of the State Electoral Commission of Puerto Rico challenging the Commission's decision to print ballots in the November 2008 elections solely in Spanish, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and a permanent injunction compelling the Commission to print bi-lingual ballots is vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment should be vacated because it was rendered moot by an independent, intervening act of legislation mandating the Commission to use bilingual ballots under Puerto Rican law; 2) plaintiffs were prevailing parties entitled to attorney's fees for the costs of the district court litigation notwithstanding the subsequent mootness; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing plaintiffs' award of attorney's fees; and 4) motion for substitution of parties by the defendant, former President of the Commission, is granted.   

Read Diffenderfer v. Gomez-Colon, No. 08-2139

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided November 19, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, and Torruella and Ripple, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Lynch, Chief Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Noel S. González-Miranda, González Miranda & González Abella PSC

For Appellee:   Eliezer Aldarondo Ortiz, Eliezer A. Aldarondo and Aldarondo & López Bras

District court's denial of defendant's request for habeas relief arising from his conviction for armed assault with intent to murder and assault and batter by means of a dangerous weapon is affirmed where: 1) appeals court's analysis of the sufficiency of the evidence was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's standard announced in Jackson given the sufficiently suggestive circumstantial evidence presented; and 2) defendant was not deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.  

Read DeBurgo v. Amand, No. 09-1145

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 19, 2009

Judges

Before: Lipez, Howard, and Stahl, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Stahl, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Elizabeth Doherty

For Appellee:   Argie K. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General, Martha Coakley, Attorney General

District court's denial of defendant's request for habeas relief is affirmed as, even with plenary review, defendant's subordination of perjury claim fails as the victim had identified him multiple time before he was ever even arguably pressed to testify by one of the police officers.   

Read Perkins v. Russo, No. 08-1150

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 18, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, and Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Boudin, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:    Robert Perkins

For Appellee:   Argie K. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau, James J. Arguin, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau, and Martha Coakley, Attorney General

In plaintiff's qui tam action against a city under the False Claims Act claiming that the city had defrauded the federal government by making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development  when applying for federal grants, dismissal of the case is affirmed where there was no error in a conclusion that the FCA's public disclosure bar applied to divest the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the action as: 1) the city's alleged misrepresentation and what the plaintiff alleges was the city's true plan were sufficiently in the public domain to ground an inference of fraud; 2) the public disclosure occurred in the manner specified in the statute; 3) plaintiff's suit is based upon those publicly disclosed allegations or transactions; 4) plaintiff does not qualify for the original source exception; and 5) district court did not err in precluding certain testimony during an evidentiary hearing.  

Read US ex rel Ondis v. City of Woonsocket, No. 08-2389

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Decided November 18, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Selya, and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Selya, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant: Leon A. Blais,  Blais & Parent

For Appellee: Michael B. Galvin, Justin P. O'Brien and Dwyer & Collora LLP

District court's conviction and sentence of defendant for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and carrying a firearm is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in admitting the testimony of the Massachusetts State Troopers regarding the fingerprint evidence and numerous courts have found expert testimony on fingerprint identification based on the ACE-V method to be sufficiently reliable under Daubert; and 2) the totality of the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. 

Read US v. Pena, No. 08-1407

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin, Lipez and Stahl, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Stahl, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Mary A. Davis, and Tisdale & Davis, PA

For Appellee:   Mark T. Quinlivan, Assistant US Attorney, Michael K. Loucks, Acting US Attorney

In plaintiff's employment discrimination, retaliatory harrasment, and hostile work environment action against his former employer, district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in holding that the continuing violation doctrine is not available to plaintiff to overcome his time-barred claims; 2) district court did not err in its concluding that there was no evidence of pretext in plaintiff's disciplining, suspension, or termination; and 3) district court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend and motion for reconsideration as his hostile work environment claim was time-barred. 

Read Windross v. Barton Protective Serv., Inc., No. 08-2254

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 17, 2009

Judges

Before:   Boudin, Gibson, and Howard, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gibson,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Brailey E. Newton

For Appellee:   David C. Hamilton

District court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit as time-barred, alleging malpractice by her deceased mother's medical care providers, is vacated and remanded where: 1) the date of accrual for plaintiff's personal claim was within the one-year statute of limitations; and 2) under 32 L.P.R.A. section 255, plaintiff is entitled to bring her mother's medical malpractice claim because it was brought within one year of her mother's death.   

Read Montalvo v. Gonzalez-Amparo, No. 08-1405

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Decided November 16, 2009

Judges

Before:  Lynch, Chief Judge, and Lipez and Leval, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Leval, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Tania M. Pagan, The Pagan Law Firm, P.C.

For Appellee:  Hector E. Ramírez-Carbo, Ramonita Dieppa Gonzalez and Vivas & Vivas Law Office

In an appeal arising from an underlying action brought by a nurse practitioner claiming that defendant-sheriff barred plaintiff from a County House of Correction (HOC) for informing the FBI of alleged prisoner abuse at the HOC, denial of defendants' motions for a new trial and for remittur is affirmed where: 1) there is nothing in the record indicating that the district court abused its discretion in making its pre-trial evidentiary and disclosure rulings; 2) district court's dismissal of defendants' action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was proper as there was nothing in the record indicating that agency's denial of the defendants' Touhy requests was arbitrary and capricious; 3) the evidence was sufficient to establish that the sheriff engaged in the callous and reckless conduct necessary to support an award of punitive damages; and 4) the award of punitive damages of $250,000 against sheriff was not excessive. 

Read Cabral v. US Dep't of Justice, No. 07-1633

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 12, 2009

Judges

Before:  Torruella, Seyla and Dyk, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Torruella, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Ellen M. Caulo, Deputy General Counsel

For Appellee:  Lowell V. Sturgill, Jr., Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Michael K. Loucks, Acting United States Attorney, and Michael S. Raab, Attorney. 

In plaintiff's disability discrimination action against his former employer under the ADA, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that the allegations of discrimination encompassed by his 2001 Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) charge placed a limitation on the claims plaintiff can present now, and as such, plaintiff could only pursue his action with respect to alleged acts of discrimination that occurred in the 300-day window preceding his 2001 MCAD charge; and 2) the district court correctly determined that, assuming the 2001 MCAD complaint was properly limited, plaintiff's remaining allegations did not support his claims of violations of the ADA.  

Read Thornton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 08-2162

Appellate Information

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Decided November 12, 2009

Judges

Before:  Boudin, Lipez, and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Gajarsa, Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Michael Tumposky, Stephen B. Hrones

For Appellee:  Elizabeth A. Kowal, and Susan J. Baronoff