Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves Christine Savage, a police officer who filed a lawsuit against the Neptune Township Police Department and others for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation. The parties entered into a settlement agreement in 2014, which included a non-disparagement clause. Savage filed a second lawsuit in 2016, alleging continued and intensified discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The parties entered into another settlement agreement in 2020, which also included a non-disparagement clause. After a television interview with Savage aired in 2020, the defendants claimed that Savage violated the non-disparagement provision of the settlement agreement.The trial court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the second settlement agreement, finding that the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) barred only non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and that Savage violated a non-disparagement clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding the non-disparagement clause enforceable but holding that Savage had not violated it.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the non-disparagement clause in the settlement agreement is against public policy and cannot be enforced. The court found that the LAD protects Savage’s statements. The court concluded that the non-disparagement clause in the agreement directly conflicts with the LAD as it encompasses and would bar speech the statute protects. The court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded the case. View "Christine Savage v. Township of Neptune" on Justia Law

The case involves the family of Todd Kerchen, who died from a lethal dose of fentanyl. The family filed a complaint against the University of Michigan and Dr. James Woods, alleging violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan state law. The family claimed that the fentanyl that killed Todd originated from a University of Michigan pharmacology lab where Christian Raphalides, the person who allegedly provided the drug to Todd, worked. The lab was overseen by Dr. Woods. The family argued that the lab's lax policies surrounding the use of controlled substances led to Todd's death.The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and ordered limited discovery on whether the action was barred by the statutes of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the University of Michigan and Dr. Woods in his official capacity were entitled to sovereign immunity, barring all claims against them. The court also found that Dr. Woods in his individual capacity was entitled to qualified immunity, barring the § 1983 claim against him. Furthermore, the court found that the wrongful death claim against Dr. Woods in his individual capacity should be dismissed as it was barred by governmental immunity. The court dismissed the remainder of the defendants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Kerchen v. University of Michigan" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident involving Corey Fisherman, an inmate at Minnesota’s maximum-security prison, and David Launderville, a prison guard. Fisherman was being transferred to a more restrictive area after a shank was found in his cell. During the transfer process, Fisherman initially refused to undergo a strip search, leading to the intervention of the A-Team, a group of guards trained to handle noncompliant inmates, which included Launderville. After the search, Fisherman objected to kneeling and placing his hands through a small opening in his cell door. Once he complied, he was handcuffed. Fisherman alleges that Launderville kneed him six times, three times each in the face and body, while another guard kneeled on his legs. Launderville, however, claims he struck Fisherman twice in the leg because he was resisting.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The magistrate judge identified a potential jury issue: whether Launderville struck a restrained inmate six times in the face and body or a partially unrestrained one just twice in the leg. The district court adopted the report and recommendation, leading to an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, denying Launderville's claim of qualified immunity. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the repeated blows to Fisherman's head and body were "malicious and sadistic." The court also determined that the law was clearly established that repeatedly striking a fully restrained inmate violates the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the court concluded that every reasonable official in Launderville's position would have understood that kneeing a restrained inmate several times in the face and body violated that right. View "Fisherman v. Launderville" on Justia Law

In this case, Austin Thompson Hughes, a former police officer and Uber driver, reported a drunk driver swerving across a highway in Houston. After the drunk driver crashed, Hughes, still on the phone with 911, performed a citizen's arrest in accordance with Texas law. However, when police officers arrived at the scene, they released the drunk driver and arrested Hughes, charging him with a felony for impersonating a peace officer. Hughes spent thousands of dollars defending against these charges before they were dropped by the City of Houston. Hughes then filed a § 1983 suit against the two officers who arrested him.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the officers moved to dismiss Hughes's complaint, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied the officers' motions, leading to an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, denying the officers' qualified immunity. The court found that Hughes had sufficiently pleaded that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting and prosecuting him without probable cause because they included material misstatements and omissions in their warrant affidavit and materials. The court also found that a corrected warrant affidavit could not have established probable cause to arrest and prosecute Hughes. The court concluded that no reasonable officer could have suspected Hughes committed a felony, given the inconsistencies in the drunk driver's statement, the driver's obvious intoxication, and the evidence supporting Hughes's account. View "Hughes v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, John Deaton, was arrested and charged with assault, battery, and disorderly conduct following an altercation at a youth football game. Although the charges were later dismissed, Deaton filed state and federal claims against the Town of Barrington and several individuals, including police officers and the town manager. The case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on most counts and remanded three counts to the state court for resolution. Deaton appealed, arguing that the district court improperly found that probable cause to arrest him existed, improperly denied his post-judgment motion, and should have abstained and remanded to state court to allow the state claims to be resolved.The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that there was probable cause for Deaton's arrest. The court also denied Deaton's post-judgment motion for relief. Deaton appealed these decisions, arguing that the district court had improperly found probable cause for his arrest, improperly denied his post-judgment motion, and should have abstained from hearing the case and remanded it to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions. The court found that the district court had correctly determined that there was probable cause for Deaton's arrest. The court also found that the district court had not erred in denying Deaton's post-judgment motion for relief. Finally, the court determined that abstention was not appropriate in this case, as resolution of the state law question would not avoid the need to resolve a significant federal constitutional question. View "Deaton v. Town of Barrington" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of petitioners who challenged a trial court's decision to establish a 200-foot buffer zone around the Norfolk County Superior Court House during the trial of a high-profile murder case. The buffer zone was created in response to protests and demonstrations near the courthouse, which the Commonwealth argued could jeopardize a fair trial. The petitioners, who sought to intervene in the trial court proceedings to oppose the buffer zone, argued that it infringed on their First Amendment rights.The trial judge allowed the Commonwealth's motion for a buffer zone, albeit reducing it from the requested 500 feet to 200 feet. The judge denied the petitioners' motion to intervene, arguing that the buffer zone was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to protect jurors and witnesses from potential intimidation or harassment. The petitioners subsequently filed petitions for relief from both the buffer zone order and the denial of their motion to intervene.The single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied the petitions, concluding that the trial judge's decision was an ordinary procedural ruling and did not warrant the court's extraordinary power of general superintendence. The single justice also found that the buffer zone met the "reasonable restriction" requirements, being content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leaving open ample alternative channels for communication.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the single justice's decision, rejecting the petitioners' argument that the buffer zone order should be analyzed under strict scrutiny as a prior restraint on speech. The court found that the buffer zone did not forbid protestors from expressing their message, but merely restricted where they could do so. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the buffer zone extended onto public sidewalks or other areas constituting a public forum. View "Spicuzza v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Leslie Atkinson purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche through a retail installment sales contract, which granted the seller a security interest in the vehicle. The seller assigned the sales contract and the security interest to Credit Acceptance Corporation. When Atkinson defaulted on her payments, Credit Acceptance hired Carolina Repo to repossess the vehicle. During the repossession, Atkinson attempted to drive off in the vehicle, leading to a confrontation with the Carolina Repo representative. The representative called the Harnett County Sheriff’s Office for assistance, and Deputy Brent Godfrey arrived on the scene. Godfrey ordered Atkinson out of the vehicle so that the Carolina Repo representative could repossess it.Atkinson sued Godfrey and Sheriff Wayne Coats under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She claimed that Godfrey, in his individual capacity, violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures of property by facilitating Carolina Repo’s repossession. She also alleged that Coats, in his official capacity as the sheriff, failed to train officers and created policies that deprived her of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures of property.The defendants moved to dismiss Atkinson’s § 1983 claim, asserting that Atkinson did not allege facts showing they acted under color of law, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that, without an underlying constitutional violation, Atkinson failed to bring an actionable claim against the Sheriff’s Office through Coats in his official capacity. The district court denied the motion, finding it could not determine as a matter of law that Godfrey’s actions did not constitute state action, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the Sheriff’s Office’s liability could be ruled out. Godfrey and Coats appealed the district court’s denial of their motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Godfrey’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court found that neither the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the highest court of North Carolina, nor a consensus of other circuit courts of appeals had determined that conduct similar to that of Godfrey was unconstitutional. Therefore, the right alleged to be violated was not clearly established. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant Godfrey’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the appeal with respect to the claim against Coats, as the issues it presented were not inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the qualified immunity issues. View "Atkinson v. Godfrey" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances and an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury or death. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel exhibited racial bias towards him in violation of the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA) by advising him to use Ebonics and slang when he testified. He also contended that the trial court erred in imposing two sentence enhancements and a parole revocation restitution fine after sentencing him to life without the possibility of parole.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, found that the defendant's trial counsel did not exhibit racial bias. The court noted that the counsel's advice to the defendant to "speak how you speak" when testifying was a valid tactical decision aimed at ensuring the defendant appeared authentic and genuine before the jury. The court also found that the defendant had not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel's advice indicated racial animus or bias towards him. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no violation of the RJA.The court also found that the defendant's claim that his enhancements should have been stricken was forfeited for failure to request that the trial court strike the enhancements under section 1385. However, the court agreed with the defendant and the People that the trial court improperly imposed a parole revocation restitution fine. The court modified the judgment to strike the parole revocation restitution fine and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "P. v. Coleman" on Justia Law

In May 2019, police officers detained Marlon Flores in a Los Angeles neighborhood known for narcotics and gang activity. The officers observed Flores standing alone near a parked car, ducking behind it as they approached. The officers suspected Flores was involved in narcotics activity due to his behavior and the area's reputation. During a pat-down search, the officers found a drug pipe in Flores's car and methamphetamine in his wallet. Flores was subsequently charged with carrying a loaded firearm and armed possession of methamphetamine.The trial court denied Flores's motion to suppress the evidence, reasoning that his behavior was suspicious enough to warrant detention and subsequent questioning. Flores pleaded no contest to the firearm charge, and the methamphetamine charge was dismissed. He was sentenced to three years' probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that Flores was not detained until he was ordered to stand and put his hands behind his head, and that reasonable suspicion justified the detention.The Supreme Court of California reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the officers' observations of Flores's behavior, combined with his presence in a high crime area at night, did not provide a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that Flores was engaged in illegal activity. The court emphasized that a person's mere presence in a high crime area cannot transform them into a suspect. The court concluded that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Flores, and thus, the evidence obtained during the pat-down search should have been suppressed. The case was remanded to the trial court to allow Flores to withdraw his no contest plea and for the court to grant Flores's suppression motion. View "P. v. Flores" on Justia Law

The defendant, Jason Pederson, was found guilty of one count of terrorizing following a jury trial. The charge was based on two emails Pederson sent to her former employer, threatening to retrieve damages through the taking of physical assets and warning employees to stay out of the way to avoid unnecessary deaths. These emails were sent after Pederson had filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employer. After receiving the emails, the employer contacted law enforcement, leading to Pederson's arrest.The case was first heard in the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District. During the trial, Pederson, who represented herself, argued that the State had violated her rights under Brady v. Maryland by failing to provide her with a recording of a conversation she had with Officer Tanner Anderson, who had informed her that she was trespassed from her former employer's property. The State argued that the recording was not relevant to the terrorizing charge and had been filed under a civil trespass file, not the criminal case. The court ruled that the State's failure to disclose the recording was not intentional and that the State must provide it before Officer Anderson was called as a witness.The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of North Dakota. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Pederson did not establish a Brady violation. The court found that although the State had possessed the recording and did not disclose it to Pederson, Pederson had not demonstrated that the recording was favorable to her or plainly exculpatory. The court also concluded that Pederson did not preserve the issue of insufficient evidence because she failed to move for acquittal under N.D.R.Crim.P. 29 and did not argue obvious error. View "State v. Pederson" on Justia Law