Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 1:25-cv-06393-JPB

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction because the district court’s order remanding the dispossessory action to state court was based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is unreviewable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) and (d). The court further determined the remand order was not appealable because the defendant did not remove the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1443, noting that removal under those statutes requires a notice of removal explicitly asserting removability under those specific provisions. As a result of this dismissal, all pending motions in the appellate court are denied as moot, and the case remains remanded to state court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Kevin Fordham, Martin Murff, and Eddie Reid but vacated Fordham’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court rejected all suppression challenges regarding Title III wiretaps, Facebook search warrants, cell phone searches, and statements made in police vans, finding that the defendants either forfeited these claims by failing to file specific pretrial motions or failed to demonstrate prejudice from alleged warrant overbreadth. The court also affirmed against Murff’s Sixth Amendment claim regarding a prison mail policy, ruling that he failed to prove an actual intrusion into his attorney-client relationship, and rejected Fordham’s Confrontation Clause challenge, finding the jury had sufficient information to assess the credibility of the government witness despite cross-examination limits. Additionally, the court found the evidence sufficient to support Fordham’s drug conspiracy and RICO conspiracy convictions. The court’s decision to vacate Fordham’s sentence was based on a procedural error under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and sentencing guidelines regarding “acquitted conduct.” Although the jury acquitted Fordham of Count 41 (possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug offense), the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a dangerous weapon based on the same firearms. This occurred after the Sentencing Commission issued an amendment (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c)) prohibiting the use of acquitted conduct for sentencing enhancements unless it established the instant offense. The district court failed to adequately address Fordham’s specific objection regarding this new amendment and the acquittal, nor did it explain its basis for rejecting the argument during the sentencing hearing. Because the record lacked a developed explanation from the district court on these complex issues, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case so the district court could properly consider the amended guidelines and alternative bases for the enhancement in the first instance.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 3:23-cv-03210-SK

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kevin B. Williams’ claims against the Social Security Administration and its denial of his motion to amend. The court held that the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)) because Williams failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of federal law, regulation, or the Constitution. Specifically, the court found that while agency regulations allow non-lawyers to receive direct payment from the SSA, they require the representative to first qualify as an “Eligible for Direct Pay Non-Attorney Representative” (EDPNA). Williams did not complete the necessary steps under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1717 and 42 U.S.C. § 406(e) to obtain this status, meaning no regulatory violation occurred. Additionally, the court rejected Williams’ argument that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applied, noting that the clause is not applicable to federal officials. Regarding the denial of leave to amend, the court affirmed the district court’s ruling on the basis that amendment would have been futile. Because Williams could not establish he was an EDPNA or had followed SSA procedures to qualify, he could not allege a valid claim for relief even with amendments. The court further declined to consider new evidence or legal issues raised for the first time on appeal. Consequently, the judgment of the district court stands, and Williams’ claims remain dismissed without prejudice to filing in the appropriate forum if jurisdiction existed, though no such path was identified as viable under the current record.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 6:25-cr-00040-JA-NWH-1

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant’s 105-month sentence for possession of a firearm and ammunition by an illegal alien, rejecting his claim that the District Court committed procedural error by applying two sentencing enhancements under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The court applied the standard of review from *Gall v. United States*, determining whether the district court clearly erred in its factual findings or application of the guidelines. Regarding the four-level abduction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A), the court held that dragging a victim down motel stairs and attempting to force her into a car parked on the street constituted moving the victim to a “different location,” distinguishing the facts from *United States v. Whatley* where movement occurred only within a single building. Regarding the two-level carjacking enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(5), the court applied the standard from *United States v. Kimble*, finding that the second victim was sufficiently near her vehicle to maintain control absent intimidation, as she was standing in the parking lot overlooking her car when armed defendants demanded it. The practical consequence is that the District Court’s judgment and sentence remain in full force and effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 1:25-CV-01164-CMA-RTG)

The Tenth Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiff Edward Hoid’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without prejudice and denying his motion to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The court held that both pleadings failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.” The court applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s decision, which had adopted a United States Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Magistrate Judge found the SAC to be 149 pages long, ending mid-sentence, and containing verbose, repetitive, and conclusory factual allegations that failed to clearly identify claims against specific defendants or establish a logical relationship for joinder among the 36 named parties. The district court determined the proposed TAC suffered from identical defects. The appellate court agreed with this assessment, noting the pleadings lacked clarity regarding which claims were asserted against each defendant and did not demonstrate entitlement to relief. As a practical consequence, the dismissal of the action without prejudice remains in effect, meaning the case is closed unless Plaintiff files a compliant pleading that satisfies Rule 8(a). The court also granted Hoid’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice of a legal malpractice and breach of contract suit brought by an estate against attorneys. The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to a show cause order or in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court applied the “abuse of discretion” standard of review, evaluating the denial of the extension under the five-factor test for “excusable neglect” set forth in *Nafziger v. McDermott Int’l, Inc.* and the four-factor test for dismissal under Rule 41(b) established in *Knoll v. AT&T*. Regarding the extension motion, the court found that while the delay was short, it was not excusable because it resulted from counsel’s internal email backlog and neglect, occurred entirely within counsel’s control, and demonstrated a lack of good faith given prior failures to adhere to court orders. Regarding the dismissal for failure to prosecute, the court analyzed whether the plaintiff’s conduct showed willfulness, bad faith, or fault; prejudice to the adversary; adequate notice of potential dismissal; and whether less drastic sanctions were considered. The court found that counsel’s repeated unexcused failures to appear at three court-mandated telephonic conferences constituted a “clear record of contumacious conduct” and reckless disregard for judicial proceedings. The court further determined that the defendants were prejudiced by wasted resources, the plaintiff received explicit warning that failure to respond would lead to dismissal, and the District Court had considered but rejected lesser sanctions as insufficient given the attorney’s history of non-compliance. The practical consequence is that the judgment dismissing the estate’s lawsuit against the law firms with prejudice stands, ending the litigation on the merits due to the plaintiff’s counsel’s persistent failure to prosecute the case.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-22

Docket: 3:23-cv-00871-EMC

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Michael Floyd’s negligent training and false arrest claims, as well as its grant of summary judgment on his defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligence, contract, and Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claims. Regarding negligent training, the court held that liability requires notice of an employee’s dangerous propensities or a pattern of misconduct, neither of which Floyd alleged; additionally, the failure to retrain after the first incident did not cause the second because different employees were involved. On the false arrest claim, the court ruled that the affirmative defense applied because Floyd committed trespass by refusing to leave the premises upon request, regardless of the later dismissal of the criminal charge. On summary judgment, the court found the defamation claim barred by the litigation privilege under California Civil Code § 47(b), as statements made to police reporting suspected criminal activity are privileged unless made with actual malice; no reasonable jury could find malice given prior complaints corroborating Floyd’s conduct. The IIED claim failed because the employee’s actions were not “extreme and outrageous” in light of multiple harassment complaints. For negligence, the court applied public policy factors to limit the duty of care owed by the gym, finding that 24 Hour had a strong interest in member safety and acted reasonably by responding promptly to complaints. Contract claims were dismissed because the membership agreement allowed termination for violating club rules regarding harassment, and the gym acted in good faith based on those violations. Finally, the UCL claim failed because the utility of the gym’s policy in protecting members outweighed any harm to Floyd, who was given opportunities to be heard before removal. The court also affirmed the district court’s procedural rulings, including the denial of motions to compel (deemed procedurally deficient), the order allowing alleged victims to use initials in declarations based on their fear of retaliation, the admission of Floyd’s membership profile as a business record under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)(B), and the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel due to the high standard required in civil cases. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC stands, and Floyd’s appeal is dismissed with no further relief granted.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

Docket: 1:24-CV-00164-SWS)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Governor Mark Gordon in his personal capacity but reversed the dismissal of Dr. Eric Cubin’s First Amendment retaliation claims against him in his official capacity and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that Cubin’s email to state legislators, which criticized a medical society’s opposition to “Chloe’s Law” (a bill banning gender-affirming procedures for minors) while endorsing the bill itself, addressed a matter of public concern under the *Garcetti/Pickering* framework. Consequently, the district court erred in concluding that Cubin failed to state a claim on this basis. Regarding the second element of the *Pickering* test—balancing the employee’s free speech interests against the government’s interest as an employer—the appellate court determined that conducting this analysis at the pleading stage was premature. The court reasoned that assessing whether the speech disrupted the Board’s operations or impaired its efficiency typically requires factual development through discovery, which was not available when the district court ruled on judgment on the pleadings. Therefore, the case must proceed to allow for a proper evaluation of potential disruption. However, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity because, at the time of Governor Gordon’s actions, it was not “clearly established” that speech criticizing the internal workings of a private organization while advocating for legislation constituted protected speech on a matter of public concern. The court found that existing precedent, such as *Connick v. Myers*, *Clinger*, and *Gardetto*, did not provide fair notice to a reasonable official that such conduct violated the First Amendment. As a result, Governor Gordon is shielded from personal liability for damages, though Cubin may pursue his claims against the Governor in his official capacity and potentially reinstate the state-law claim under supplemental jurisdiction on remand.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The fifth-circuit granted the government’s motion for a stay of the district court judgments pending rehearing en banc in these consolidated immigration cases, while simultaneously denying the government’s motion to refer the matter to the en banc court as unnecessary. The court issued this per curiam order based on its assessment that referring the motion was not required and that granting the stay was appropriate to preserve the status quo during the en banc review process. As a practical consequence, the district court judgments in favor of the petitioners are temporarily suspended, preventing their immediate enforcement while the Fifth Circuit considers the cases for rehearing by the full bench.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-21

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Carol D. Moore’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the dismissal was proper under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which precludes federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases that are essentially appeals of state court judgments. Applying this standard, the appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the lower court’s application of the doctrine to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims against the attorneys and law firm. Consequently, the dismissal stands, and the case remains closed without prejudice, meaning the plaintiff is barred from relitigating these specific claims in federal court under the current jurisdictional constraints but may potentially refile if the underlying state proceedings are resolved differently or if a new cause of action arises.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.