CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ARNETIA JOYCE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY; MELVIN L. WATT; THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-6680
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.
No. 7:15-cv-00109—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: July 27, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 22, 2017
Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Appellant Arnetia Joyce Robinson is a stockholder in the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”; collectively, the “Companies”). During the economic recession in 2007–2008, Congress enacted the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (“HERA”), which created an agency, Appellee Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), and authorized FHFA to place the Companies in conservatorship. The Companies, through FHFA as their conservator, entered into agreements with Appellee Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) that allowed the Companies to draw funds from Treasury in exchange for dividend payments and other financial benefits. The Third Amendment to those agreements modified the dividend payment structure and required the Companies to pay to Treasury, as a quarterly dividend, an amount just short of their net worth. The Third Amendment effectively transferred the Companies’ capital to Treasury and prevented dividend payments to any junior stockholders, such as Robinson. Robinson brought suit against FHFA, its Director, and Treasury, alleging that the Third Amendment violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The district court found that Robinson’s claims were barred by HERA’s limitation on court action and that Robinson had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARCUS MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HON. PAUL J. SULLIVAN; TIMOTHY M. DOYAL; LEE A. SOMERVILLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 17-1897
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-10815—Denise Page Hood, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 22, 2017
Before: KEITH, COOK, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Marcus Martin, proceeding pro se, filed a late notice of appeal. In response to a show cause order, he claims that he did not receive timely notice of the underlying judgment. But Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) requires Martin to seek relief in the district court. He did not. We therefore lack jurisdiction over his appeal.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
FLOYD ALLEN HARDRICK, JR.; BIANCA PETERSON; THERESA ROBINSON; ROCHELLE MUNSON-GRIFFIN; FREDERICK DOUGLAS WEEMS; ROUSIA MAY; THOMASINA MCCONNELL; VERONICA SEWARD; CHRISTIE NELSON; ALICIA KATHLEEN NAPIER; STEPHEN SHACKELFORD; KENNETH D. SAVAGE; MYRTLE RICE; JOSEPH A. LINK, II,
Plaintiffs-Appellants (16-2704),
Plaintiffs-Appellees (17-2077),
v.
CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN; HARRY WARD,
Defendants-Appellees (16-2704),
Defendants-Appellants (17-2077).
   Nos. 16-2704/17-2077
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-13884—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.
Argued: October 5, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 22, 2017
Before: SUTTON, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Dog bites dog. So begins this federal case about searches and seizures allegedly gone awry, if not the newspaper story about the dispute. Detroit has a straydog problem. As many as 50,000 of them roam the city’s streets and abandoned homes, sometimes in packs. One group in a position to appreciate the seriousness of the problem, the United States Postal Service, ranked Detroit sixth in its “Annual Dog Attack City Rankings” in 2016.

The Detroit City Council sought to address the problem by enacting an ordinance that tightened the regulation of animals within City limits. The law imposed licensing and vaccination requirements on owners, sought to prevent the spread of rabies, and targeted “dangerous” or “vicious” animals. It also empowered law enforcement to enter the homes and yards of pet owners if probable cause existed that they (or their dogs) had violated the regulations. An assortment of dog seizures under the ordinance by officers of Detroit Animal Control, an agency of the City, prompted the dispute. Some of the seizures arose from dog attacks on other dogs, some from attacks on people, some from reports of dogs menacing the neighborhood, some from rabies concerns, some from neglected dogs, and some from unlicensed dogs.

In response to these seizures, fourteen individuals, the owners collectively of twentythree dogs (18 Pit Bulls, 3 Presa Canarios, 1 German Shephard, 1 Boxer), filed this § 1983 action, making three essential claims against the City and the Director of Detroit Animal Control. The first: One part of the 2004 Detroit ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment by permitting officers to make warrantless searches of houses and yards to determine if the owners were complying with the City’s dog-licensing rules and related regulations. The second: The City had a policy of unreasonably seizing dogs in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The third: The City had a policy of depriving owners of their pets without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The individuals did not sue any of the individual officers who conducted the seizures.

The district court granted the individuals the requested relief—an injunction—with respect to the warrantless search-and-seizure claim, and the defendants have not appealed that ruling. The district court granted the defendants judgment as a matter of law as to the other claims because the plaintiffs could not show any constitutional violations, and the individuals appealed both rulings. Because most of the plaintiffs cannot show that a Detroit policy or custom directly caused the alleged search-and-seizure violations, and because all of the plaintiffs cannot show a cognizable due-process violation, we affirm in large part and reverse in small part.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOEL NATHAN DUFRESNE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CARMEN DENISE PALMER, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 17-1340
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:12-cv-01210—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 22, 2017
Before: ROGERS, SUTTON, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Joel Nathan Dufresne, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dufresne has filed a notice of appeal, which this court construes as an application for a certificate of appealability. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2).

. . .

For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Dufresne’s application for a certificate of appealability.