Stephan P. Mickle

In Ballard v. McNeil, the petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction for aggravated child abuse based on choking his daughter, after two trials and various state post-conviction proceedings. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition in full. Several claims were found procedurally defaulted because they were not properly raised in state court. The remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims failed because the petitioner could not show a reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed but for counsel's alleged errors, and there was no denial of the right to a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves a copyright dispute between Faulkner Press, the publisher of electronic textbooks and lecture materials for University of Florida wildlife courses taught by Dr. Michael Moulton, and Class Notes, a company that sells student note packages derived from those courses. Faulkner Press alleged copyright infringement in Counts One through Three based on the use of practice questions, film study questions, lecture notes, and sound recordings, along with claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in Counts Five and Six for altering or falsely adding copyright management information, and a state law claim in Count Seven for unauthorized commercial use of Dr. Moulton's name. The court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on Counts Five, Six, Seven, and the portion of Count Three involving sound recordings, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the questions at issue were unprotectable statements of fact rather than original works, the note packages were not substantially similar to the textbooks, Class Notes had no access to the sound recordings, and the DMCA and name-use claims lacked factual support.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the National Organization for Marriage challenging Florida statutes defining electioneering communications and organizations, which impose disclosure and registration requirements on groups making certain ads or mailings referring to candidates shortly before elections. NOM sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement, arguing the laws were unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and subject to strict scrutiny due to their use of an "appeal to vote" standard and lack of a major purpose test. The court denied the injunction, finding NOM unlikely to succeed on the merits because the statutes trigger only exacting scrutiny for speech that is unambiguously campaign-related, satisfy that standard through a substantial relation to the government's interest in informing voters about funding sources, and do not require major purpose analysis since they impose limited disclosure burdens rather than full political committee obligations. Although the election had passed, the issues were deemed capable of repetition yet evading review.

electionsfree speech

This case involves a state prisoner’s pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations by prison medical staff and officials at Franklin Correctional Institution and the North Florida Reception and Medical Center for inadequate treatment of his partially amputated left foot, including denial of referrals, pain medication, a cane, and a no-prolonged-standing pass. After de novo review of objections to the magistrate judge’s reports, the district court adopted those reports in full. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims but denied it as to the claim against defendant Bennett-Blake for denying a referral to the Brace Clinic on February 14, 2008, and the claim against defendant Franklin for denying ibuprofen, a cane, and the pass, finding genuine issues of material fact remain for trial on those issues. The court reasoned that certain alleged acts, such as destroying requisition forms, constituted permissible medical judgments under Estelle v. Gamble rather than deliberate indifference, and that objections did not support expanding the claims or imputing liability without supporting evidence.

criminal lawcivil rightshealthcare

In United States v. Burton, the defendant moved to suppress cocaine found in his vehicle after a traffic stop, claiming that the DEA's prior installation of a magnetic GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of his Chevrolet Avalanche and the stop itself violated the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the motions, holding that the external placement of the device without entering the vehicle did not require a warrant, the stop was supported by probable cause from observed traffic violations such as lane changes and following too closely, and the search was justified by the defendant's consent and the officer's detection of marijuana odor. The court reasoned that subjective investigative motives were irrelevant to the objective validity of the traffic stop, the stop's length was reasonable given administrative tasks and backup needs, and the encounter became consensual with ongoing cooperation.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Diane Curry's application for supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, and depression. The Administrative Law Judge found that Curry retained the residual functional capacity for certain light unskilled work and thus was not disabled under the five-step analysis. On de novo review, the district court determined that substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ's conclusion that Curry's impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment and that her testimony lacked full credibility, citing pulmonary function scores, evidence of medication non-compliance, and physician notes questioning her reliability as a historian. The court therefore adopted the magistrate judge's report and affirmed the Commissioner's denial of benefits.

healthcarefederal power

The case involved David King, a former employee of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, who alleged retaliation after complaining internally and externally about perceived hiring favoritism and a supervisor's false crime report on an emergency line. King was terminated, successfully appealed to regain his position, but faced a new investigation and declined reinstatement; he sued the agency and several employees on claims including violation of the Whistle-blower’s Act, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference. The court denied the motions to dismiss the whistleblower claim and the two tortious interference counts, holding that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state those claims under the applicable standards, but granted dismissal with prejudice of the negligence and emotional distress counts because they failed to satisfy the required legal elements such as misfeasance or extreme conduct.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who used Depo-Provera, a contraceptive manufactured by the defendant, for eight years starting in 1995 and was later diagnosed with osteopenia, a loss of bone density. She sued under negligence and strict liability theories, claiming the defendant failed to adequately warn that extended use could cause this condition. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The prescribing physician testified that the existing warnings on the package insert were clear and sufficient regarding bone mineral density risks, and expert testimony established that osteopenia itself does not constitute a compensable legal injury but rather a condition that might lead to future issues.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a challenge by civil rights organizations to a Florida statute (Subsection Six) requiring voter registration applicants whose identifying numbers could not be verified through databases to provide documentary proof of their driver's license, state ID, or Social Security card to election officials. After the Eleventh Circuit reversed an earlier injunction based on statutory preemption claims under HAVA and the VRA, the district court addressed the remaining constitutional claims asserting violations of the right to vote and equal protection. The court denied the renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the requirement imposed only a minimal burden on a small fraction of applicants and was justified by the state's important regulatory interests in preventing voter fraud and maintaining accurate voter rolls. The court further concluded that the law did not violate equal protection because it applied neutrally and aligned with federal requirements under HAVA. The decision focused solely on the amended version of the statute signed in June 2008.

electionscivil rights

Beta Upsilon Chi (BYX), a Christian fraternity, sued the University of Florida after UF denied its application to become a Registered Student Organization because BYX's membership requirements—limited to those who profess faith in Jesus Christ—violated UF's nondiscrimination policy against discrimination based on religion or creed. BYX sought a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the policy, grant it registered status, and stop alleged retaliation. The court denied the motion, holding that BYX failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment expressive association claim. The ruling reasoned that UF's policy is viewpoint-neutral, as other religious groups that do not restrict membership by creed have been approved, and the denial stemmed from BYX's conduct rather than its religious perspective.

free speechreligious liberty

Thomas J. Stewart applied for supplemental security income benefits alleging disability from lower back pain; at the time he was 47, had the equivalent of a third-grade education, was functionally illiterate, and had no past relevant work. The Administrative Law Judge found he retained the residual functional capacity for a limited range of medium work and could perform jobs such as industrial cleaner or kitchen helper, leading the Commissioner to deny benefits. On judicial review the magistrate judge applied the substantial-evidence standard and five-step sequential evaluation, determined that the ALJ’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence in the record, and recommended reversal with an order to grant benefits. The district judge adopted the report and recommendation without objection and reversed the Commissioner’s decision, directing that the application be granted.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Pfeil v. Sprint Nextel Corp., plaintiffs sued telecommunications providers over charges for Vacation Rate Service, a discounted residential phone plan for seasonal users, claiming that an interstate access surcharge violated the providers' advertising that customers would pay half the basic rate plus appropriate taxes. The district court granted Embarq's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the case. The core reasoning was that the filed rate doctrine bars all claims because rates and terms in a properly filed FCC or state tariff constitute the governing law, customers are charged with notice of them, and no relief is available that would alter, add to, or excuse payment under those filed rates. Every count in the complaint was found to seek such impermissible relief, whether through refunds, contract enforcement, or other remedies.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is an appeal under 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(6) from a Florida Public Service Commission arbitration order approving interconnection agreements between incumbent local exchange carrier BellSouth and competitive local exchange carriers NuVox and Xspedius under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The agreements concerned the leasing of unbundled network elements to enable competition in broadband services such as DSL, and the parties disputed terms including commingling, line conditioning, EEL audits, and deposit amounts. The district court reviewed statutory interpretations de novo and the commission’s actions under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard, affirming the order on line conditioning, EEL audits, and deposit amounts while vacating the provisions requiring commingling of section 251 elements with section 271 checklist elements. The court concluded that the commission’s commingling decision was the only portion inconsistent with applicable federal law and FCC orders.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case centered on Watson Construction Company's attempt to purchase land and obtain city approval to build an asphalt and concrete plant in Gainesville, Florida, which was blocked when the City imposed a six-month moratorium on certain industrial uses following public opposition. Watson sued the City, alleging due process and equal protection violations as well as takings claims, after a state court had enjoined enforcement of the moratorium against Watson. The court denied the City's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Watson possessed a protectable property interest sufficient to support standing and the constitutional claims, and that further analysis was required on the merits of each claim under applicable legal standards.

propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a challenge by a lobbying organization, firms, and lobbyists to Florida's 2005 lobbying reform law, which imposed bans on lobbyist expenditures for legislators and agency officials as well as detailed quarterly disclosure requirements for lobbying firm compensation, with audits and penalties for violations. Plaintiffs argued the law was improperly enacted, interfered with judicial regulation of attorneys, and violated constitutional protections including free speech, due process, equal protection, privacy, and separation of powers, seeking a preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The court denied the motions, holding that plaintiffs failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the Act was facially unconstitutional, noting that many claims conflicted with the statute's plain language and that adequate remedies like advisory opinions existed for clarification.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by the Sierra Club to the EPA's approval of Florida's 2002 list of impaired waters under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, including claims that the agency arbitrarily approved the list despite mercury-related fish consumption advisories, improperly allowed low priority rankings for certain impaired waters, and wrongly approved exclusions or delistings of other waters. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court considered after reviewing the administrative record and applying the arbitrary and capricious standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court explained that this standard is narrow, does not permit substituting judicial judgment for that of the agency, and requires examining whether the EPA's decisions were based on relevant factors and supported by the evidence in the record, such as Florida's Impaired Waters Rule methodology and data collection under the rotating basin approach.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case involved Petitioners' motion for attorney's fees after prevailing in an NASD arbitration and confirming the award in federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court denied fees incurred during the arbitration because the parties had signed a submission agreement, requested fees in their pleadings and arguments, and thereby waived judicial determination while conferring jurisdiction on the arbitrators, who denied the request. The court granted fees for the confirmation proceeding because Petitioners prevailed on their Florida Securities Act claim under § 517.301, making them the prevailing party entitled to fees under Florida law. The opinion sets a schedule for the parties to brief and document the amount of recoverable fees and expenses.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over the termination of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan administered by Liberty Life Assurance Co. The plaintiff, who had been receiving benefits since 1996 due to conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, challenged Liberty's 2002 decision that he was no longer disabled from any occupation and thus ineligible for continued payments. Applying a heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review because of Liberty's conflict of interest, the court reviewed medical records, surveillance videos, an independent medical examination, and responses from treating physicians. The court determined that Liberty's decision was wrong, as the evidence did not reasonably support a finding that the plaintiff could perform sedentary work, leading to the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff with orders to retroactively reinstate benefits. Liberty's motion for summary judgment was denied, and certain post-decision evidence was excluded from consideration.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved a challenge by contractors' associations to Florida statutes establishing spending goals for state agencies to award contracts to certified minority business enterprises based on race and gender categories. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendants', ruling that the provisions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The core reasoning was that the race- and gender-conscious classifications did not satisfy the applicable levels of scrutiny, as they were not justified by sufficient evidence of discrimination or narrowly tailored.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiff Philip Cargile's claims that defendant Viacom International, Inc. misappropriated his trade secrets and breached an implied-in-fact contract by using his Go-Burns cartoon concepts to develop the Rugrats series without confidentiality or payment. The court granted Viacom's motion for summary judgment, finding the trade secrets claim time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations because Cargile knew of the Rugrats by December 1997, and the contract claim barred by the four-year limit since the alleged breach occurred no later than the 1991 airing of Rugrats. The court further held that Cargile lacked evidence of actual use, as the Rugrats were developed independently starting in 1989 with no proof of access to his materials, and there was no substantial similarity between the characters. The court also granted a motion for sanctions in the form of a reprimand against Cargile's attorney for pursuing the claims after they became untenable but declined to impose monetary sanctions or penalties on Cargile himself.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure