CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
VICTOR L. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF TROY, OHIO; MIAMI COUNTY, OHIO; P.M. OSTING; S.A. GATES; H. HOHENSTEIN; C.A. MADIGAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-4719
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:15-cv-00054—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 1, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; DAUGHTREY and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Victor L. Smith, represented by counsel, appeals the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to the defendants on his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The parties have waived oral argument, and the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

. . .

For the reasons discussed, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to Deputy Osting on Smith’s claims that Osting used excessive force in taking him to the ground with a leg sweep and in handcuffing him forcibly; REVERSE the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment to Officer Gates on Smith’s claim that Gates excessively deployed his taser; and REVERSE that part of the district court’s judgment dismissing Smith’s pendent state-law claims. We AFFIRM the remainder of the district court’s judgment and REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
HOPE KERR, for Hank W. Kerr, Deceased,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-6673
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:15-cv-00313—
Argued: June 15, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 1, 2017
Before: NORRIS, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Hope Kerr (on behalf of her deceased husband Hank W. Kerr) appeals the judgment of a United States Magistrate Judge denying as moot her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In April 2015, Kerr sought judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) that Mr. Kerr was not entitled to disability benefits prior to his death. After the district court granted a joint motion to remand for further administrative proceedings, Kerr moved for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Kerr specifically requested that any fee award be made payable directly to her attorney pursuant to an assignment between Kerr and the attorney. The district court concluded that it could not award fees directly to Kerr’s lawyer because it concluded that the fee assignment violated the Anti-Assignment Act (“AAA”). Kerr subsequently filed a motion to amend or alter the district court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting that the court reverse the application of the AAA to her assignment with her lawyer, honor the fee award assignment, and order payment of the fees directly to Kerr’s counsel. Before the district court could rule on the Rule 59(e) motion, the Commissioner paid the fee award to Kerr’s counsel. The district court subsequently denied as moot Kerr’s Rule 59(e) motion. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
N RE: DONALD J. TRUMP; DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC.,
Petitioners.
   Nos. 17-510/5830
17-510
On Petition for Permission to Appeal

17-5830
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:16-cv-00247—David J. Hale, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: November 1, 2017
Before: McKEAGUE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. At a campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky, on March 1, 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump responded to protesters by stating, “Get ‘em out of here,” followed closely by, “Don’t hurt ‘em—if I say go ‘get ‘em,’ I get in trouble with the press.” Apparently, the latter admonition either went unheeded or came too late. Allegedly in response to Trump’s initial statement, three protesters were assaulted by three Trump supporters. Those three protesters, now plaintiffs in this action, filed a complaint in Kentucky state court against several defendants, including Trump. Trump removed this action to federal district court.

The district court denied in part Trump’s motion to dismiss, holding the complaint stated a plausible claim for “incitement to riot” under Kentucky law. Ordinarily, such an order is not appealable. However, this petition comes to us under a well-established exception because the district court certified its order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Thus, the issue before us is whether, in our discretion, we should permit the appeal so that this court can consider the merits of the district court’s order before the case proceeds. For the reasons that follow, we grant the petition for leave to appeal.