Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Price v. Pierce, 08-1401, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his conviction for aggravated sexual assault for beating and raping an inmate. In affirming the dismissal, the court held that a review of the plain language of section 116-3 and the Illinois state court decisions discussing that provision leads to the conclusion that a motion under section 116-3 is not a collateral review of the underlying judgment and therefore does not toll the statute of limitations for bringing a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. section 2255.
LaFuente v. US, 08-3670, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his conviction for drug and weapons related offenses, claiming that he was denied his right to conflict-free counsel because at the time of his trial, his counsel was subject to prosecution by the same U.S. Attorney's office that was prosecuting him. In vacating the judgment, the court remanded the matter in holding that the district court erred by denying the motion prematurely because defendant's pro se motion, affidavit, and exhibits sufficiently alleged facts that would entitle him to relief on his section 2255 motion.
Castile v. Astrue, 09-3917, concerned a challenge to the district court's affirmance of the Social Security Administration's denial of plaintiff's numerous claims under Title II of the Social Security Act for disability insurance and disability widow's benefits. In affirming, the court held that the ALJ considered all available evidence involving plaintiff's chronic fatigue syndrome and there was substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's long-standing complaints did not render her disabled. The court also held that the district court did not err in agreeing with the ALJ's obesity finding that plaintiff was not prevented by her impairments from performing her past work, nor in upholding the ALJ's credibility determinations as the ALJ thoroughly examined the evidence and clearly articulated his findings.
Abcarian v. McDonald, 09-3208, involved plaintiff's suit against a university and number of its employees, claiming that defendants' reporting of a settlement of a medical malpractice claim against him to state and national professional authorities violated his constitutional rights. In affirming the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to reconsider its judgment of dismissal of the case, the court held that plaintiff's own complaint shows that the defendants merely complied with legal requirements for filing notices of medical malpractice settlements with federal and state authorities, and by filing those notices, defendants did not violate plaintiff's free speech rights or his rights to equal protection of the law and due process of law.