Michael Stokes was convicted in Michigan state court of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and habitual offender status after representing himself at trial following a dispute with his appointed counsel over trial strategy. He filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the convictions on the ground that he did not validly waive his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The district court found that Stokes did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive counsel because the trial court compelled him to proceed pro se without adequately resolving his complaints about counsel, amounting to a structural constitutional error. The court therefore conditionally granted the petition, ordering that the state provide Stokes a new trial with the assistance of counsel within ninety days or release him from custody.
In United States v. Dresbach, the defendant sought a reduction in his federal prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on the medical conditions of his wife and daughter, after the Bureau of Prisons declined to file a motion for compassionate release. The court denied the motion, finding that the BOP had properly exercised its discretion by considering both medical and non-medical factors as permitted by statute, regulations, and Sentencing Guidelines, and had provided a reasonable basis for its denial. The opinion notes that the BOP's review included the family circumstances raised by the defendant, even though no motion was filed by the BOP, and that the defendant would become eligible for home confinement in February 2012.
In this case, Chrysler Group LLC sued Moda Group LLC (doing business as Pure Detroit) and its principals for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and related claims under the Lanham Act and Michigan law, alleging unauthorized use of the phrase "IMPORTED FROM DETROIT" on apparel and accessories following Chrysler's Super Bowl advertising campaign. Chrysler sought a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants from selling products bearing the phrase. The court denied the motion, finding that Chrysler failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success on the merits, as the phrase appeared primarily geographically descriptive rather than protectable, and the factors for likelihood of consumer confusion weighed against Chrysler. The court noted an adequate remedy at law would be available if Chrysler ultimately prevailed.
This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by John Palazzolo challenging his state convictions for two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to interview and present witnesses who could have supported his defense that the sexual acts were consensual and that the victim had conspired to falsely accuse him. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court conditionally granted the writ, finding that counsel's performance was deficient and that the omitted testimony created a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial. The court reasoned that the witnesses' accounts directly addressed consent and credibility issues central to the state court's guilty verdict based on the victim's testimony. The state was ordered to retry the petitioner or release him within 100 days.
This case involves Arthur Bell's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1989 Michigan convictions for first-degree felony murder and felony firearm possession arising from the 1988 shooting death of William Thompson. The district court determined that the state court's rejection of Bell's Brady claim—based on undisclosed exculpatory evidence regarding alternative suspects and witnesses—was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The court also found that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present alibi witnesses who would have placed Bell elsewhere at the time of the crime, contrary to clearly established federal law. As a result, the court conditionally granted the writ of habeas corpus, ordering Bell's release unless the state retries him within a specified period.
The case concerned whether DiPonio Construction had any obligation under the NLRA to bargain with the Union for a new collective bargaining agreement after the prior CBA terminated, with DiPonio claiming it fell under section 8(f) and thus imposed no duty, while the Union and NLRB argued it was governed by section 9(a). DiPonio filed suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment on the issue and later added a breach of contract claim, but the Union and intervening NLRB moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal, holding that the claims raised representational issues within the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB rather than suits for violation of contracts under section 301 of the LMRA. The court also rejected in part the magistrate's denial of sanctions and imposed Rule 11 sanctions on DiPonio.
