Sixth Circuit Cases

6th Cir. Decisions for Week of July 21-25, 2008 (No Ky Decisions)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0262p.06 2008/07/22	Howard v. USA     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0263p.06 2008/07/22	Coomer v. Yukins     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0264p.06 2008/07/22	USA v. Funk     On Remand from the United States Supreme Court
08a0265a.06 2008/07/22	Justin Parsons v. City of Pontiac     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Justin Parsons was arrested for the nonfatal shooting of Arthur Frantz, a firefighter with the Pontiac Fire Department. Parsons was a former firefighter who was discharged as a probationary employee of the Fire Department a month and a half before the shooting. Following his arrest, Parsons was detained for approximately two days before he was released. No charges have ever been filed against him in regard to the shooting. Parsons sued the City of Pontiac and a number of city police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan state law. Specifically, Parsons alleges that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested and detained without probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
08b0010p.06 2008/07/24	In re Murray, Inc. v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Nashville
08a0266p.06 2008/07/25	B & H Med v. ABP Admin Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit PER CURIAM. In response to our opinion granting Defendants-Appellees’ motion for appellate sanctions pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, John A. Cook, counsel for Defendants-Appellees, filed an affidavit in support of a requested amount of sanctions totaling $152,846.11. B & H Medical, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant (“B&H”), and Stephen M. Ryan, P.L.L.C., and Stephen M. Ryan, Attorneys-Appellants (collectively, “Ryan”), filed a response contending that the requested amount is excessive. For the reasons stated below, we agree and fix the amount at $10,000.
08a0267p.06 2008/07/25	Phillips v. Roane Cnty TN     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellee Carolyn Phillips, the representative of Sonya Denise Phillips’s Estate (hereinafter “the Estate”), filed this claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various governmental officials, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to Phillips’s serious medical needs. At issue in this case is whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity to the officials. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Estate, we AFFIRM the denial of qualified immunity to the correctional officers of Roane County, Duranda Tipton, and Dr. Thomas Boduch, REVERSE the denial of qualified immunity to Ken Yager, David Haggard, Gloria Wright, and Howie Rose, and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with * this opinion.

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
      

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0433n.06	USA v. Westerfield     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0434n.06	USA v. Williams     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0435n.06	Sulaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0436n.06	USA v. Wilson     Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
08a0437n.06	Johnson Controls v. Thomas     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson PER CURIAM. Johnson Controls, Inc., filed this action seeking to declare its former employee, Carolyn Thomas, ineligible for workers’ compensation. The district court dismissed the complaint because Thomas already initiated state-court proceedings seeking benefits from Johnson Controls. We affirm the district court’s judgment but not its reasoning inasmuch as it grounded the dismissal on Colorado River abstention when it should have invoked its Declaratory-Judgment-Act discretion. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286 (1995) (holding that Colorado River abstention is inapplicable to actions requesting declaratory relief).
08a0438n.06	USA v. Robinson     Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
08a0439n.06	Edwards v. UAW Natl Ford Dept     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0440n.06	Avalon Precision Casting Co v. Industrial Commission of Ohio     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0441n.06	Ware v. Tow Pro Custom     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0442n.06	Clark v. Lockheed Martin     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville

6th. Cir. Decisions for Week of Jul 14-18, 2008 (Ky - 2 Pub, 2 NPO)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion Date	Short Title/District
08a0253p.06 2008/07/15	Moore v. Haviland, Warden     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0254p.06 2008/07/16	USA v. Green     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0255p.06 2008/07/17	Burlison v. USA     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0256p.06 2008/07/17	Phar-Mor Inc v. McKesson Corp     Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. At issue in this bankruptcy case is whether a vendor’s administrative-expense priority on its reclamation claim is effectively extinguished when the goods subject to reclamation are sold and the proceeds used to satisfy a secured creditor’s superior claim. Because we hold that it is not, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.
08a0257p.06 2008/07/17	USA v. Duane     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. John Joseph Duane appeals his sentence for receiving and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4). Duane contends that: (1) calculating his sentence using the 2005 Sentencing Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause; (2) the district court erred in enhancing Duane’s sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) for receiving and possessing sadistic images; and (3) his sentence is unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm.
08a0258p.06 2008/07/18	Fidel v. Farley     Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant James J. Hayes, appearing pro se, seeks review of the district court’s approval of a settlement in this securities class action brought against Fruit of the Loom. Hayes, a nonnamed member of a class of Fruit of the Loom shareholders, contends that the district court erred in approving the settlement because certain class members, including Hayes, received notice of the settlement after the deadline for objecting to the settlement. Hayes maintains that the settlement should be set aside and the class renotified. Additionally, Hayes requests that the attorney’s fees granted by the district court to class counsel be reduced due to the alleged deficiencies in providing notice to the class. In turn, the lead plaintiffs—the appellees in the instant case—argue that this court should decline to hear Hayes’s appeal because Hayes, as a nonintervening, nonnamed class member, is not a “party” for purposes of appealing the settlement. We conclude that Hayes has the power to bring this appeal, notwithstanding his status as a nonintervening, nonnamed class member. Nonetheless, we affirm the district court’s order approving the settlement, as well as the court’s award of attorney’s fees to class counsel.
08a0259p.06 2008/07/18	USA v. Young     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0260p.06 2008/07/18	Donald Evanoff v. The Standard Fire Insurance Co     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Donald Evanoff appeals an order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of defendants The Standard Fire Insurance Company and Readyclean, Inc. (collectively “Standard Fire”). Evanoff argues that the district court erred in holding that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Evanoff’s compliance with the requirements of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued to him by Standard Fire. He contends further that the court abused its discretion in failing to allow him to conduct additional discovery before the court granted Standard Fire’s motion for summary judgment. Finding Evanoff’s arguments to lack merit, we affirm.
08a0261p.06 2008/07/18	Totes Isotoner Corp v. Intl Chemical Wrks     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant, International Chemical Workers Union Council/UFCW Local 664C (“Union”), appeals the district court’s order granting the motion of Plaintiff, totes»Isotoner Corporation, to vacate a supplemental labor arbitration award. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
      

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0417n.06	Reed v. City of Cleveland     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0418n.06	Paul House v. Ricky Bell     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0419n.06	McSwain v. Davis     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0420n.06	Magnum Towing & Recovery v. City of Toledo     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo PER CURIAM. In 2003, the City of Toledo, Ohio, suspended Magnum Towing and Recovery from the list of towers eligible to perform police-ordered tows of inoperable and abandoned cars within the City, and, in 2004, the City revoked Magnum Towing’s towing permit. Shortly thereafter, Magnum Towing and its owner, Anna Petrey, filed this § 1983 action against the City and two of its police officers, alleging violations of federal due process and Ohio law. We affirm the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the City and its officers.
08a0421n.06	USA v. Lanier     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0422n.06	Giles v. University of Toledo     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Dr. Sammie Giles, Jr., Ph.D. (“Giles”) appeals the grant of summary judgment, on all of his claims, to the University of Toledo and four individuals in its administration whom Giles sued in both their official and individual capacities: Alan G. Goodridge, James M. Sciarini, Ganapathy Naganathan, and Daniel M. Johnson. Giles alleged that “one or more” of the Appellees had subjected him to disparate treatment based on race, retaliated against him for engaging in protected activities, wrongfully discharged him in violation of Ohio public policy, and violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Ohio Revised Code § 4112. Also, Giles appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for partial summary judgment as to whether a collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the University of Toledo and the American Association of University Professors, University of Toledo Chapter (“the union”) covered him. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for the University and its administrators on all of Giles’s claims.
08a0423n.06	Mann v. Helmig     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Stephen Mann appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant- appellee Michael Helmig, Sheriff of Boone County. Mann argues that the district court erred in granting Helmig’s motion for summary judgment on Mann’s § 1983 claims and denying Mann’s motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision.
08a0424n.06	Mullaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0425n.06	USA v. Jones     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson
08a0426n.06	Adams v. Lucent Tech Inc     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0427n.06	Jody Cain v. Joe Irvin     Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green Plaintiff Jody Cain appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on her § 1983 claims of excessive force, false arrest, failure to provide medical care, and municipal liability for failure to train, as well as her state law claims of assault, battery, negligence, and outrage. She similarly appeals the district court’s order denying her request to consider alleged newly discovered evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
08b0013n.06	In re: Bruce Gilpin v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Youngstown
08a0428n.06	USA v. Lao     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
08a0429n.06	Holder v. City of Cleveland     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0430n.06	Evans v. USA     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0431n.06	Dow Corning v. DCC Litigation Fac     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0432n.06	Goller v. OH Dept of Rehab     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

6th Cir. Decisions for Jul 7-11, 2008 (3 Ky NPO)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0245a.06 2008/07/07	Mahdi v. Bagley     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0246p.06 2008/07/07	USA v. Griffin     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0247p.06 2008/07/08	Sigler v. Amer Honda Motor Co     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this diversity-of-citizenship lawsuit arising under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (“TPLA”), the district court granted summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee American Honda Motor Company (“Honda”) after considering several unsworn letters from various experts for Honda. Because our case law clearly prohibits considering such materials, and because Plaintiff-Appellant Shelly Sigler (“Sigler”) presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the airbag in her vehicle was defective and caused her injuries, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
08a0248p.06 2008/07/08	William Mobley v. CIR     Commissioner of Internal Revenue
08a0249p.06 2008/07/09	USA v. Ford Motor Co     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0250a.06 2008/07/09	Wagenknecht v. IRS     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0251p.06 2008/07/10	Croskey v. BMW of N Amer     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a jury verdict in an automotive products liability action in favor of defendants BMW of North America, Inc., a BMW distributor, and Bayerische Motoren Werk Aktiengesellschaft (BMW AG), the manufacturer. Plaintiff was injured when a plastic radiator piece on a 1992 BMW failed, releasing hot radiator fluid. On appeal, plaintiff alleges numerous errors at trial concerning evidentiary rulings and a jury instruction, most of which we reject. But, because the district court erroneously ruled that evidence of similar incidents could not be used by plaintiff to prove negligence in the design of the car by BMW, we reverse the district court and remand for a new trial. A recent Michigan case decided after the district court tried this case indicates that similar-incidents evidence in this case may be admitted to prove design defect.
08a0252p.06 2008/07/10	Warshak v. USA     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
08a0403n.06	2008/07/07	USA v. Zamarripa-Garcia     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0404n.06	2008/07/07	Beltran v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0405n.06	2008/07/07	McCarty v. Doe     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0406n.06	2008/07/07	E-Poch Properties v. TRW Automotive U.S.     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0407n.06	2008/07/07	Deborah Guthrie v. Michael Astrue     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0408n.06	2008/07/08	Totes Isotoner Corp v. Intl Chemical Wrks     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0409n.06	2008/07/09	USA v. Turner     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0410n.06	2008/07/09	Corder v. Ford Motor Co     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville WILLIAM W SCHWARZER, District Judge. Kenneth Corder, Sr., brought this action against Ford Motor Company on behalf of himself and others similarly situated seeking damages under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”), Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.100 et seq., restitution and other equitable and declaratory relief. Corder alleges that in May 2004 he purchased a Model Year 2004 F-250 Ford F-Series Super Duty Truck with a 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine and that he subsequently discovered that the truck he purchased contained a 2003.25 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine instead of the improved 2004 6.0L Power Stroke Diesel engine which Ford had installed in 2004 F-250 Series Super Duty trucks beginning in truck with a 2003 engine was a deceptive practice and unjustly enriched Ford. After initial discovery, Ford moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion. It held that Ford’s actions were not unfair, false, misleading or deceptive. The court reasoned that the changes implemented in the 2004 engine did not result in an engine substantially different from that installed in Corder’s truck and that Ford’s failure to disclose the engine’s manufacturing history was not a material omission. It further held that Corder had failed to show that he had suffered “ascertainable loss of money or property” within the meaning of the KCPA. Finally, the court rejected the claim for equitable relief. Corder timely appealed.
08a0411n.06	2008/07/09	Bariteau v. PNC Financial Serv     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In the late 1990s, Paul Bariteau lost nearly $14 million that he had invested in the Military Channel after the company’s vice president and chairman, Lenny Krane, made several unauthorized withdrawals from the company’s account with PNC Bank. In 2006, after obtaining a default judgment against the judgment-proof Krane, Bariteau filed a complaint against PNC, alleging that PNC had breached its agreement with the Military Channel (of which he allegedly was a third-party beneficiary) and aided and abetted Krane’s misdeeds. The district court dismissed the complaint and denied Bariteau’s post-judgment motion for leave to amend his complaint. We affirm.
08b0012n.06	2008/07/09	In re: Alga Henson v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Lexington
08a0412n.06	2008/07/09	USA v. Townsend     Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville
08a0413n.06	2008/07/10	Vushaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0414n.06	2008/07/10	Jiang v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0415n.06	2008/07/10	Amer Auto Ins Co v. Transp Ins Co     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0416n.06	2008/07/11	Gotosa v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals

6th Cir. Decisions for Jun 30 - Jul 3, 2008 (3 ky decisions)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0234p.06 2008/07/01	El Bey v. Roop     Southern District of Ohio at Dayton
08a0235p.06 2008/07/01	Doe v. The Salvation Army     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0236p.06 2008/07/01	USA v. Miller     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0237p.06 2008/07/02	USA v. Erpenbeck     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0238p.06 2008/07/02	S.S. v. Eastern KY Univ     Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. From 2000 to 2003, S.S. was a student at the Model Laboratory Middle School (Model), which is operated by Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) to train student teachers under the supervision of certified teachers. S.S. has various disabilities, including cerebral palsy, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, pervasive developmental disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. During his attendance at Model, S.S. was involved in numerous physical and verbal altercations with other students, leading S.S. to complain that he was being bullied and harassed. Model investigated the incidents as they occurred, determining that some were initiated by S.S. and some were initiated by other students. In response, Model took various steps as the school administration deemed appropriate, including interviewing S.S. and his classmates, disciplining the students that it found to be culpable, monitoring S.S., and at times separating S.S. from his harassers. S.S. left Model after successfully completing the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. He subsequently filed suit against EKU, Model’s director Jacqueline Vance, and Model’s psychologist Ellen Rini, alleging that the defendants had discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of both federal and state law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0239p.06 2008/07/02	Heather Ellison v. USA     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Heather Ellison asks us to reinstate her tort claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Because she filed this lawsuit almost seven months after the Postal Service denied her claim, because the Act requires claimants to file their claims within six months of the agency’s written denial of the claim and because her alternative readings of the Act are unconvincing, we affirm.
08a0240p.06 2008/07/03	USA v. Pearce     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0240p.06 2008/07/03	USA v. Johnson     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0241p.06 2008/07/03	USA v. Kimbrel     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0241p.06 2008/07/03	USA v. Kimbrel     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0242p.06 2008/07/03	White v. Baxter Healthcare     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, Todd A. White (“White”), an African-American, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Baxter Healthcare Corporation (“Baxter”), on White’s employment discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (2000), Section 101 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act (the “Elliot-Larsen Act”), Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101 et seq. (2002). In particular, White contends that he has presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race when Baxter (1) failed to promote him, and (2) downgraded his 2004 performance evaluation. We agree, and, for the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of Baxter’s motion for summary judgment and REMAND the case for trial.
08a0243p.06 2008/07/03	Jacob v. West Bloomfield     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Michael Killian, a land ordinance enforcement officer employed by the Township of West Bloomfield (“Township”), appeals the decision of the district court denying him summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff William Jacob’s claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 According to Plaintiff, Defendant violated his Fourth Amendment rights when Defendant entered Plaintiff’s property without a warrant to inspect the property for criminal violations of a land use ordinance. Defendant claims that he is entitled to qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s claim, but the district court denied this assertion of immunity. Because it is clearly established that a criminal investigation must be conducted within the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
08a0244p.06 2008/07/03	USA v. Parrett     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS
      

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
08a0387n.06	2008/07/01	USA v. Davis     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0388n.06	2008/07/01	USA v. Willis     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0389n.06	2008/07/01	George Goulson v. Yum! Brands, Incorporated     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0390n.06	2008/07/01	Avery v. Jt Twnshp Dist Mem     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0391n.06	2008/07/01	Sardo v. Dept Homeland     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0392n.06	2008/07/01	Hawkins v. Ganshimer     Northern District of Ohio at Akron
08a0393n.06	2008/07/01	USA v. Franklin     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson
08a0394n.06	2008/07/01	Grose v. Caruso     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0395n.06	2008/07/01	USA v. Smith     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0396n.06	2008/07/01	Rranxburgaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0397n.06	2008/07/01	Ohio Midland, Inc. v. Proctor     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0398n.06	2008/07/01	Baker v. Muskasey     Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland
08a0399n.06	2008/07/01	Swilley v. Tipton     Eastern District of Kentucky at London
08a0400n.06	2008/07/02	United States Surety Company v. KeyCorp     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0401n.06	2008/07/02	USA v. Edmondson     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson

RULES: ECF Training Database Available on line!!!

The court has developed a training database for counsel's use in familiarizing themselves with the how-to's of filing in ECF. Counsel are encouraged to access that database and practice with ECF at this link.

• ECF Training Database
• Notice: Electronic Case Filing (ECF)
  Effective June 1, 2008: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has implemented the ECF system for the electronic filing of court documents. ECF Document Filing
• Electronic Case Filing (ECF) - Guide and Amendments
  The court of appeals has adopted amendments to the 6 Cir. Rules and Internal Operating Procedures. The amendments have taken effect as of June 1, 2008. More Information
• Notice: Re: Electronic Case Filing (ECF)
  Effective June 1, 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has implemented the ECF system for the electronic filing of court documents. A special registration form which must be completed for that purpose can be accessed at this link. Registration Information

RULES: Opportunity for Comment on Amendments

The amendments to the Sixth Circuit Rules and Internal Operating Procedures noted above were made in advance of the period for comment required by 6 Cir. R. 47, due to the immediate need for their implementation. The court is interested in receiving comments from the bar, and anyone interested in doing so may submit them via e-mail to: ca06-clerk_court@ca6.uscourts.gov.

All comments are to be submitted by Monday, September 1, 2008.