The case involved defendant Kevin R. Wells, who had a prior misdemeanor conviction for unlawful imprisonment in the second degree stemming from an incident with his wife, and was indicted for knowingly possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Wells moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it failed to allege a domestic relationship with the victim of the predicate offense, that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights, and that unlawful imprisonment was not a proper predicate offense because it could be committed without physical force. The court denied the motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the indictment sufficiently tracked the statutory language, identified the specific predicate conviction, and provided adequate notice without needing to allege the domestic relationship element separately, as confirmed by Supreme Court precedent; further, court records showed Wells had used physical force, making the offense a valid predicate under the statute.
In Wells v. United States, the petitioner challenged his 2007 state conviction for a misdemeanor domestic violence crime, which served as the basis for a federal charge of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). He sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, arguing that the state proceeding violated his due process rights. The court denied the petition, holding that Wells was not eligible for habeas relief because he was no longer in custody under the state conviction, as his sentence had expired in May 2007, and collateral consequences alone do not satisfy the custody requirement.
This case involved plaintiff Derek DeMeo suing New York State Police officers and a bar (Phlip ’N Spill) along with its employee after an altercation outside the Bayou Café in 2006, asserting federal claims under §1983 for unlawful seizure, excessive force, due process violations from witness intimidation and evidence destruction, and conspiracy, plus related state-law claims for false arrest, assault, battery, and negligence. After a jury trial, judgment was entered dismissing all claims against the officers and employee, as well as most claims against the bar, but awarding plaintiff $110,000 against Phlip ’N Spill ($10,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive) on the due process evidence-destruction claim. The court denied all post-trial motions, including the bar’s requests under Rules 59(e), 50(b), and 59(a) to dismiss the due process claim or reduce damages, and the plaintiff’s requests under Rules 50 and 59(a) for judgment or a new trial on the dismissed claims. The court reasoned that the verdict was not internally inconsistent because joint activity with a state actor does not require an explicit conspiracy or liability for the officer, the evidence sufficiently supported the jury’s findings on state action and evidence destruction, and the punitive damages were not excessive given the conduct at issue.
The case involved a jury trial resulting in convictions of Certified Environmental Services, Inc. and several individual defendants on charges including conspiracy to defraud the United States, aiding and abetting Clean Air Act violations related to improper asbestos handling at multiple sites, mail fraud, and false statements, all tied to asbestos abatement projects from 1999 to 2007 in the Syracuse area. Following the verdicts, the court addressed restitution in this memorandum decision and order. It determined the total losses sustained by victims such as Syracuse University and others, accepted the government's figures for certain projects, and apportioned liability among the defendants based on their roles in the conspiracy and offenses. The court ordered specific restitution amounts for each defendant, such as $117,101.96 for CES and lesser sums for individuals, with provisions for joint and several liability, while considering factors like Onoff's limited involvement and financial situation for his reduced share.
The case concerned a private Catholic high school and parents of its student-athletes challenging the New York State Public High School Athletic Association and Section III's policy of classifying non-public schools separately from public schools for post-season football competition, which allowed reclassification to a higher class based on winning records or championships. Plaintiffs alleged that the policy violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by treating religious schools differently without sufficient justification. The court applied the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal to assess the complaint on the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, examining whether the classification criteria were rationally related to the goal of equitable competition and whether any fundamental rights or suspect classifications were implicated.
In Seals v. Potter, a former USPS casual custodial employee alleged that she faced race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation after complaining about a coworker's remark, including closer scrutiny, denied time off, shift changes, and eventual termination, all in violation of Title VII and state law. The defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment, primarily arguing that the plaintiff failed to timely exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC. The court converted the motion to one for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against individual defendants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and the pendent state law claims, but denied summary judgment on the Title VII claims against the Postmaster General. It reasoned that the plaintiff had not abandoned her administrative process, as she eventually completed the required counseling packet, participated in mediation, and triggered an investigation, thereby satisfying the exhaustion requirement for proceeding in federal court.