Thursday, September 29, 2016

Unpublished decisions

U.S. v. Hughart, 2016 WL 1445974 (4/13/16) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th holds the officer did not detain Mr. Hughart when, while Mr. Hughart was stopped in the road, the officer activated emergency lights, requested an ID and ignored Mr. Hughart's request to pull his car into a parking lot. The 10th says: emergency lights were a safety precaution, not an attempt to detain; requesting an ID doesn't turn a consensual encounter into a seizure; and the officer was trying to figure out what was going on when Mr. Hughart requested to move his car. A patdown was okay, the 10th concludes, because the officer had a reasonable belief Mr. Hughart was armed and dangerous, given his touching of his right side near his waistband [furtive movements!!!], the fact that Mr. Hughart was arguing with his crying wife and the officer's experience with domestic disputes.

U.S. v. Saucedo-Avalos, 2016 WL 1444727 (4/13/16) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - The 10th rules it wouldn't render a plea invalid even if Mr. Saucedo-Avalos' lawyer had falsely assured him he would receive no more than a ten-year sentence. The judge's statements at the plea hearing that Mr. Saucedo-Avalos could receive a sentence from ten years to life trumped the lawyer and prevented the plea from being involuntary. Mr. Saucedo-Avalos received 30 years in prison.

Williams v. Wilkinson, 2016 WL 1459529 (4/14/16) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The 10th reverses a dismissal of a Muslim prisoner's § 1983 and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act ("RLUIPA") suit. The 10th rules Mr. Williams could be deprived of his RLUIPA and First Amendment rights by the prison's refusal to give him kosher food, even if the prison thinks Muslims are required by their religion to eat halal food, not kosher food.

Thornton v.Goodrich, 2016 WL 1445397 (4/13/16) (Col.) (unpub'd) - Procedural victory for a § 2254 petitioner. The 10th remands where the district court rejected Mr. Thornton's Fourth Amendment claim under Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), on the grounds that the state courts had provided a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim. The 10th holds the district court should have actually examined the state court record before deciding Mr. Thomas was afforded a full and fair opportunity.

Winkel v. Heimgartner, 2016 WL 1534062 (4/15/16) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - Yet another victory for a § 2254 petitioner. The 10th finds the district court erred in the following ways: in determining whether Mr. Winkel timely filed a pro se petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court, the district court considered the federal prisoner mailbox rule instead of the appropriate state prisoner mailbox rule; the district court did not properly place the burden on the state to prove the state supreme court consistently applies the prisoner mailbox rule in the same manner as it did in Mr. Winkel's case; and the district court improperly required Mr. Winkel to prove his satisfaction of the prisoner mailbox rule by submitting prison mail logs or other additional evidence, instead of by submitting his and a prison official's affidavits.