Voters' Civil Rights Suit Against County Elections Board, Plus Government Contract, Immigration & Criminal Law Matters

Warf v. Bd of Elections of Green County, 09-5265, involved plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming unconstitutional disenfranchisement against a county elections board and individuals, alleging that their voting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by a Kentucky state trial court judgment that declared void all 542 votes cast by absentee ballot in the 2006 General Election for the office of Green County Clerk.

In affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the court held that the Green Circuit Court's decision to void the absentee ballots does not rise to a level of fundamental unfairness in violation of Due Process as it is evident that the decision to void all absentee ballots cast in the election reasonably applied applicable Kentucky case law, and the court appropriately looked to analogous state cases and applied the careful scrutiny to incumbent clerks described therein.

US v. Allen, 08-6363, concerned a challenge to a conviction of defendant for drug and firearm related offenses.  The court affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict defendant on all counts; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a denial of a motion of acquittal; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting two prior convictions under Rule 404(b); 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting crack cocaine into evidence; 5) the dashboard video simply does not show that the officer planted the crack cocaine, and there is not basis in the evidence for finding outrageous government conduct; and 6) district court properly admitted the evidence seized during defendant's arrest.

US ex rel. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co., 09-1654, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint concluding that the proposed amended complaint, which included a list of contracts that the government allegedly entered into as a result of fraudulent representations on the part of Ford, did not allege with sufficient particularity the existence of a "claim" as defined by the False Claims Act (FCA).  In affirming, the court held that, because no holding of Bledsoe II affected the circuit's law on the questions at issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its original rationale for not permitting plaintiff to file its second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 59(e) still obtained and that permitting such a filing was not otherwise "required in order to prevent an injustice."

Mwasaru v. Napolitano, 08-2628, concerned a Kenyan citizen's appeal of a district court's order dismissing her petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a court order compelling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer her file to an immigration judge to commence removal proceedings, review by the IJ of the denial of adjustment status, and the issuance of a diversity visa should the IJ approve her application.  In dismissing for lack of jurisdiction, the court held that section 1154 rendered petitioner ineligible for a DV-2007 visa as of midnight on September 30, 2007, and therefore, she is likewise ineligible for adjustment of status under section 1255 because no visa is immediately available.

Middlebrooks v. Bell, 05-5904, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of defendant's petition for habeas relief from his 1989 conviction for capital murder of a fourteen-year-old. In affirming, the court held that the district court correctly determined that defendant's claims are either procedurally defaulted or do not provide a basis for vacating his death sentence under the strictures of AEDPA.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Warf v. Bd of Elections of Green County, 09-5265
• Full text of US v. Allen, 08-6363
• Full text of US ex rel. SNAPP v. Ford Motor Co., 09-1654
• Full text of Mwasaru v. Napolitano, 08-2628
• Full text of Middlebrooks v. Bell, 05-5904