Acker Gumusyazici v. United States — 9th Cir. (Oct 16, 2026)

The Sixth Circuit hears the Redmond family's civil appeal following a child's death after a car crash in Michigan. In August twenty twenty, three children were in a car that their babysitter allegedly crashed into a tree. The children returned to her home in Roseville, where one child died the next morning. The family later sued police officers and the city over their response that night. A federal judge entered summary judgment for two officers and the city, ending those claims without a trial. Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine dispute over an outcome-relevant fact requires a trial and the moving party is entitled to win under the law. The family's claims focus on police inaction, rather than officers inflicting the injuries themselves. It will ask the appeals court to let those claims proceed. One issue is state-created danger: a constitutional theory requiring, among other things, official action that creates or increases a particular risk from private harm. Simply failing to protect someone is generally not enough under the Due Process Clause. Qualified immunity can shield officers from federal damages claims unless they violated a clearly established right that a reasonable officer would have known.

The Sixth Circuit hears Joshua Hallmon's appeal from convictions tied to a July twenty twenty crime spree in Tennessee. The crimes included two store robberies, kidnappings and carjackings; one victim was shot. A jury convicted Hallmon, and a federal judge sentenced him to forty-one years. He challenges the instructions used to hold him responsible for his accomplices' gun use. Aiding and abetting means intentionally helping a crime, which can make a person punishable as if he committed it himself. Section nine twenty-four C ordinarily sets an additional minimum of five years for firearm use during a violent crime, seven for brandishing and ten for discharge. Brandishing means displaying a gun, or making its presence known, to intimidate. Facts raising these minimums generally need jury findings. The dispute is what Hallmon had to know in advance. He will argue the jury needed to find advance knowledge that the gun would be brandished or fired. The government will argue that knowledge of an armed crime is enough. The parties also dispute whether the objection was preserved. Plain-error review requires, among other things, a clear or obvious mistake affecting substantial rights.

The Ninth Circuit hears Nevada's appeal in Christopher Keller's right-to-counsel case. A traffic stop led to drug charges; a jury convicted Keller, and he received life in prison with parole eligibility after twenty years. Dissatisfied with his appointed attorney, he hired another lawyer. But the trial judge refused to postpone the trial so she could take over. Keller challenged that refusal in state court, then sought federal habeas relief. Nevada will defend the refusal to grant another delay; Keller will argue it violated his right to hire counsel of his choice. Choosing a paid lawyer is distinct from receiving effective assistance. That choice is not unlimited: judges may weigh fairness and scheduling. Federal habeas corpus allows a prisoner to challenge custody that violates federal law. Exhaustion generally means first fairly presenting the same federal claim to the state courts. De novo review means deciding a legal question afresh, without deferring to the earlier legal ruling. Waiver generally means deliberately giving up a right; forfeiture means failing to preserve it in time. The habeas statute requires an express state waiver of exhaustion. The judges will ask whether that rule also prevents forfeiture on appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit hears Lucious Boyd's challenge to his Florida death sentence. A jury convicted him in 2002 of murder, armed kidnapping and sexual battery. During jury selection, one juror mentioned juvenile trouble but did not disclose her adult felony convictions. Boyd will contend that this denied him an impartial jury. He will also challenge his lawyers' failure to object when a woman in the gallery shouted a rape accusation during the penalty phase. That accusation concerned earlier charges that had ended in acquittals, not the convictions under review. A federal judge later questioned the juror but denied his habeas petition; Boyd appeals that denial. Federal habeas corpus allows a prisoner to challenge custody that violates federal law. Exhaustion generally requires first fairly presenting the federal claim to the state courts. Once a state court has rejected the substance of a federal claim, disagreement alone is not enough for federal relief. Strickland's ineffective-assistance test generally requires objectively unreasonable lawyering and a reasonable probability of a different result without the errors.

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute over the labels on Pantene and Herbal Essences shampoos and conditioners. Two shoppers sued Procter and Gamble, alleging that claims such as ninety percent natural origin mislead buyers when ingredients undergo industrial chemical processing. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning that the front labels were ambiguous and the explanations on the back defeated the claimed deception. The shoppers will ask the court to let their claims proceed; the company will defend the dismissal. At this stage, the question is whether the complaint states a plausible legal claim, not whether the shoppers have proved their case.