Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In June 2018, Leslie Davies and volunteers from the Animal Protection and Rescue League, Inc. protested against a pet store in a Temecula shopping mall, alleging the store sourced dogs from puppy mills. They were asked by mall officials to move their protest due to a table reservation conflict. When Davies refused, Riverside Sheriff’s Deputy Rudy Leso threatened her with arrest if she did not comply. Davies requested a citation instead, but Leso insisted on arrest. Consequently, Davies and the volunteers left the area.The plaintiffs, Davies and the League, filed a lawsuit against the County of Riverside and Deputy Leso in August 2019. The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained demurrers without leave to amend for several causes of action, including negligence, Bane Act, and Ralph Act claims. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining cause of action for declaratory relief.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions, finding no error. It held that Davies’s negligence claim failed because she did not allege physical injury or a breach of duty. The Ralph Act claim was dismissed as the threat of arrest did not constitute violence. The Bane Act claim was also dismissed because the threat of arrest alone did not amount to coercion or intimidation. Lastly, the court upheld the summary judgment on the declaratory relief claim, noting there was no actual controversy since the County agreed that mall rules are not laws and cannot provide probable cause for arrest. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the County and Deputy Leso. View "Animal Protection and Rescue v. County of Riverside" on Justia Law

On January 9, 2021, Xzavier D. Hill, an 18-year-old, was shot and killed by Virginia State Troopers Seth W. Layton and Benjamin I. Bone. Hill's estate, represented by his mother, LaToya K. Benton, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the troopers used excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and committed state law torts. The troopers moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion, finding that the troopers' actions were objectively reasonable and that no clearly established law indicated their conduct was unconstitutional.The district court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity on both the constitutional and clearly established prongs. The court determined that the troopers reasonably believed Hill posed a danger by disobeying commands and reaching towards what they perceived to be a handgun. The court also concluded that there was no precedent clearly establishing that the troopers' actions were unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the state law tort claims, as they were dependent on the success of the federal excessive force claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that all three Graham factors—severity of the crime, immediate threat to officers, and resisting arrest or evading arrest by flight—favored the troopers. The court also determined that there was no Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit precedent that clearly established the troopers' conduct as unconstitutional. Therefore, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Benton v. Layton" on Justia Law

Leslie Torgerson filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Roberts County, South Dakota, and several individuals, including County Sheriff Tyler Appel, County Deputies Zachary Angerhofer and Wesley Bowsher, his adopted son Ross Torgerson, and his ex-wife Terri Torgerson. Torgerson alleged violations of his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and civil conspiracy. He also asserted a Monell claim against the County, a state-law claim for common law battery against Ross, and a state-law intentional-infliction-of-emotional distress claim against Deputy Angerhofer, Deputy Bowsher, Ross, and Terri. These claims stemmed from a domestic dispute involving Torgerson, Ross, and Terri.The defendants moved for summary judgment on Torgerson’s claims. The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. The court concluded that Torgerson failed to state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment violation, as he did not plead that he possessed a constitutional interest that had been violated. The court also determined that Torgerson’s civil conspiracy claim failed due to the lack of a stated constitutional interest and insufficient facts showing a conspiracy. Consequently, Torgerson’s Monell claim against the County also failed. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, considering them to be purely state-related issues.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Torgerson did not suffer a deprivation of liberty as he was not charged or prosecuted for any crime, thus failing to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the civil conspiracy and Monell claims, as there was no underlying constitutional violation. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. View "Torgerson v. Roberts County of South Dakota" on Justia Law

A high school student, Eszter Pryor, trained and competed with the Ohio State Diving Club at The Ohio State University (OSU). In the summer of 2014, when she was sixteen, her diving coach, William Bohonyi, sexually abused her. Pryor alleged that OSU was aware of the abuse by August 2014, as they fired Bohonyi following an internal investigation. Pryor filed a Title IX lawsuit against OSU in January 2022, claiming the university was deliberately indifferent to a sexually hostile culture and her abuse.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed Pryor's claim, ruling it was time-barred by the statute of limitations. OSU had argued that the applicable statute of limitations was two years, as per Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A), and the district court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of OSU based on the expiration of the limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the correct statute of limitations for Title IX claims in Ohio is the two-year period for personal injury actions under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A). The court rejected Pryor's argument that a twelve-year limitations period for child sex-abuse claims under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.111(C) should apply. The court emphasized the importance of uniformity and predictability in applying the statute of limitations and noted that Pryor's claim accrued when she turned eighteen in July 2015, giving her until July 2017 to file her lawsuit. Since she filed in January 2022, her claim was indeed time-barred. View "Pryor v. The Ohio State University" on Justia Law

Lawrence Ray was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for multiple crimes, including racketeering conspiracy, extortion, sex trafficking, forced labor, money laundering, tax evasion, and committing a violent crime in aid of a racketeering enterprise. These convictions stemmed from Ray's operation of a criminal enterprise that targeted young adults, primarily his daughter's college roommates, for indoctrination and exploitation, including sex trafficking and forced labor in Pinehurst, North Carolina.The district court sentenced Ray to 720 months of imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release. Ray appealed his conviction, arguing insufficient evidence to support his convictions, the unconstitutionality of the racketeering statutes, improper admission of expert testimony, and the substantive unreasonableness of his sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed Ray's appeal. The court found sufficient evidence to support Ray's convictions, including the existence of an enterprise, the commission of violent crimes to maintain or increase his position in the enterprise, and the coercion of victims into sex trafficking and forced labor. The court also rejected Ray's constitutional challenge to the racketeering statutes, noting that such challenges have been consistently rejected in the past.Regarding the expert testimony, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Dr. Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist, who provided general background on coercive control tactics without directly linking her testimony to Ray or his victims. The court also found that the district court properly balanced the probative value of the testimony against its potential prejudicial effect.Finally, the court concluded that Ray's 720-month sentence was substantively reasonable, given the gravity of his crimes and the need for deterrence, incapacitation, and just punishment. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Ray" on Justia Law

In this case, Whitney Hodges, representing the estate of her late daughter Honestie Hodges, alleges that on December 6, 2017, Grand Rapids Police Department officers detained Honestie, an eleven-year-old African American girl, at gunpoint, handcuffed her, and placed her in a police car. The officers were searching for a stabbing suspect who did not match Honestie’s description. Honestie was not armed, did not pose a threat, and did not attempt to flee. The complaint asserts that the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain Honestie and used excessive force in doing so.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan partially denied the officers' motion to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds. The district court found that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of Honestie’s Fourth Amendment rights, including unreasonable search and seizure, false imprisonment, and excessive force. The court declined to consider video evidence and police reports provided by the officers, determining that these materials did not blatantly contradict the complaint’s allegations and were subject to reasonable dispute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The court affirmed the district court’s order, agreeing that the complaint plausibly alleged that the officers violated Honestie’s clearly established rights. The Sixth Circuit held that the officers’ actions, as alleged, lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause and involved excessive force. The court dismissed the officers' appeal to the extent it sought to resolve disputed factual issues, emphasizing that such issues should be addressed after discovery. View "Hodges v. City of Grand Rapids, Mich." on Justia Law

Alexander Smith, a Christian firefighter in Atlantic City, was prohibited from growing a beard due to the city's grooming policy, which he claimed violated his religious beliefs. Smith sued the city, alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII’s accommodation and anti-retaliation provisions. The District Court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment for the city on all claims.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey initially denied Smith's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that his claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits. After discovery, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the city on all four claims, leading Smith to appeal the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the District Court’s judgment regarding Smith’s Title VII accommodation claim and his free exercise claim, finding that the city's grooming policy was not generally applicable and failed strict scrutiny. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment on the equal protection claim and the Title VII retaliation claim, concluding that Smith did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Additionally, the court reversed the denial of Smith’s motion for a preliminary injunction, recognizing a likelihood of success on the merits and the irreparable harm caused by the loss of First Amendment freedoms. View "Smith v. City of Atlantic City" on Justia Law

Antonio Smith, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, was on a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions. After refusing to leave his cell for a wellness check, correctional officers used force to extract him for three consecutive days without incident. On the fourth day, Captain Jay Van Lanen used pepper spray, despite knowing Smith had a medical contraindication. Smith experienced severe respiratory distress and was placed naked in a cold cell for 23 hours.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that there were no Eighth Amendment violations. Smith appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that a jury could determine that the use of pepper spray and the conditions of Smith's confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. However, the court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision based on qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.The court held that while the actions of Captain Van Lanen and Lieutenant Retzlaff could be seen as excessive and lacking legitimate penological purpose, the specific rights violated were not clearly established at the time. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no evidence of excessive force during Smith's escort to the health unit, affirming summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Smith v Kind" on Justia Law

Media Matters for America and Eric Hananoki, a senior investigative reporter, filed a lawsuit against Warren Kenneth Paxton, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of Texas. The plaintiffs alleged that the Texas Office of the Attorney General launched a retaliatory campaign against them after they published an unfavorable article about X.com, a social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The article reported that corporate advertisements on X appeared next to antisemitic posts and that Musk endorsed an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Following the publication, the Texas Attorney General's office issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to Media Matters, requiring them to produce extensive records.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and denied Paxton's motion to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that the investigation and CID constituted cognizable injuries sufficient to establish the plaintiffs' standing. The court concluded that the plaintiffs satisfied the requisite factors for a preliminary injunction, including a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's judgment. The appellate court held that Paxton was subject to personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia because he purposefully directed actions at the plaintiffs in the District. The court also found that the plaintiffs' complaint raised a justiciable claim of First Amendment retaliation, as they alleged concrete and ongoing harms resulting from the retaliatory investigation. The court concluded that the District of Columbia was a proper venue for the action and that the District Court did not err in issuing the preliminary injunction. View "Media Matters for America v. Paxton." on Justia Law

Robert Schneider, charged with murder, filed a discovery motion under Pitchess v. Superior Court and Brady v. Maryland, seeking Brady information from the confidential personnel records of six deputies with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The trial court found good cause for an in camera review and determined that four of the six deputies' files contained Brady material. However, the court only ordered the disclosure of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals who had witnessed or complained about the conduct, not the Brady material itself.Schneider petitioned for a writ of mandate, challenging the limited disclosure. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court should have ordered LASD to disclose all Brady material in the four deputies’ personnel files, including documents and any audio-video materials.The Court of Appeal held that while the Pitchess procedures must be followed to obtain Brady information in officers’ confidential personnel files, the limitations on disclosure under Pitchess do not apply to Brady material. The court emphasized that Brady material must be fully disclosed, including any relevant complaints, reports, or audio-visual evidence, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial. The petition was granted, directing the trial court to vacate its previous order and conduct a further in camera review to identify and produce all Brady material to Schneider’s counsel. View "Schneider v. Superior Court" on Justia Law