Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A public hospital district in California established and recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) in 1991 for a common interest development known as the Tulare Medical Center. These CC&Rs included a prohibition on abortion clinics within the development. In 2001, certain property subject to these CC&Rs was transferred to individual owners, who later sought to lease it to a family planning organization that provides a range of services, including abortion. The property owners association, comprised of all parcel owners and authorized to enforce the CC&Rs, objected to the lease and sought to enjoin the operation of the clinic, arguing that any abortion services would violate the CC&Rs.The Superior Court of Tulare County reviewed the association’s request for a preliminary injunction. After considering the parties’ submissions and arguments, the court denied the injunction. The court found there was a credible threat that abortion services would be provided but concluded the association had not shown a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Specifically, the trial court noted unresolved legal questions regarding whether restrictions on abortion clinics in CC&Rs violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act or California constitutional protections, and found the association failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms favored an injunction.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. It held that the prohibition on abortion clinics, adopted by a public entity, constituted government action that interfered with the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive choice under the California Constitution. The court applied the compelling interest test, found no compelling interest justifying the restriction, and concluded the prohibition violated fundamental public policy. Additionally, the court held that the prohibition was void under Civil Code section 53 because it indirectly limited property use based on a characteristic protected by the Unruh Act. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Tulare Medical Center Property v. Valdivia" on Justia Law

Two men approached a van in a Denny’s parking lot in Los Angeles in the early morning hours of December 19, 1981. One of the men, holding a gun, demanded valuables from the occupants, Toney Lewis and Carolyn Spence. After robbing them, the gunman shot Lewis, who died from the wound. At trial, there was conflicting eyewitness identification as to whether the defendant or his brother was the shooter. An accomplice, who testified in exchange for a plea deal, stated that the defendant was the gunman and shot Lewis. Other witnesses recounted statements by the defendant suggesting his brother was not the killer and that he was the one who shot Lewis.The defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of murder, robbery, and attempted robbery, with the jury finding true that a principal was armed with a firearm but not true that the defendant personally used a firearm or that the robbery special circumstance (which, as instructed, required the defendant to have personally killed the victim) applied. On direct appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction. Subsequently, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95), which provides relief for certain felony-murder convictions. The resentencing court initially denied relief, finding the defendant aided and abetted the murder. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, instructing reconsideration under the theories that the defendant was either the actual killer or a major participant acting with reckless indifference.In the most recent proceeding, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, held that the jury’s not-true findings on the firearm enhancement and special circumstance did not preclude the resentencing court from finding the defendant was the actual killer. The court found substantial evidence supported that finding and affirmed the denial of resentencing. View "People v. Player" on Justia Law

The case centers on Kenny Faulk, a Black man, who was conditionally offered a sales position by Dimerco Express USA, a transportation company. The offer was rescinded after the company’s president learned of Faulk’s race, despite Faulk successfully passing a background check that revealed only a prior misdemeanor conviction. Internal communications and testimony showed that Dimerco’s leadership, particularly its president, maintained a policy of hiring only white individuals for sales positions and had rejected non-white applicants for this reason. Faulk later learned that a white applicant with a more significant criminal history was hired for a similar position, and after discovering the discriminatory policy, he filed suit against Dimerco for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia presided over the trial. At trial, Dimerco sought to introduce evidence of Faulk’s unrelated 2019 arrest to undermine his emotional distress claim, but the district court ultimately excluded this evidence, finding it minimally relevant and highly prejudicial. The jury returned a verdict for Faulk, awarding him $90,000 in lost wages, $300,000 in emotional distress damages, and $3 million in punitive damages. Dimerco moved for a new trial, arguing that misconduct by Faulk’s counsel and evidentiary errors required one, or alternatively, for remittitur of the damages as excessive. The district court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The court held that any misconduct by Faulk’s counsel was effectively cured by the district court’s instructions and did not deprive Dimerco of a fair trial. The evidentiary rulings were not erroneous or, if so, were harmless. The compensatory and punitive damages were supported by the evidence and not unconstitutionally excessive. The judgment in Faulk’s favor was affirmed in all respects. View "Faulk v. Dimerco Express USA Corp." on Justia Law

After his wife disappeared in May 2020, the plaintiff became the primary suspect in her case. Significant evidence was collected, and law enforcement focused on the possibility that he had staged the scene to make it appear as an abduction. Despite his consistent claims of innocence and multiple meetings with investigators, prosecutors charged him with first-degree murder in May 2021, even though his wife's body had not been found. Before trial, the defense discovered that prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence, leading the State to dismiss charges without prejudice. The plaintiff then filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against various officials involved in his arrest and prosecution, alleging fabrication of evidence, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and related claims.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado reviewed the complaint, the lengthy arrest affidavit, and the parties' arguments. It granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the plaintiff’s allegations failed to plausibly allege an absence of probable cause for his arrest and prosecution. The court noted the presence of extensive inculpatory facts and determined that the complaint did not sufficiently link individual defendants to the alleged misconduct. Certain claims were also dismissed as conclusory, and some defendants were found to have immunity. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff’s federal claims for malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence under the Fourth Amendment, Franks violations, conspiracy, failure to intervene, and municipal liability all required plausible allegations that probable cause was lacking, which the complaint did not provide. The court also found the Fourteenth Amendment claims for fabrication of evidence and reckless investigation deficient due to lack of causal allegations. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed. View "Morphew v. Chaffee County" on Justia Law

A New York citizen brought suit in federal court against a federally chartered corporation headquartered in Washington, D.C., alleging disability discrimination under New York law. The plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, arguing that the defendant should be considered a citizen of the District of Columbia based on its principal place of business, even though it was not incorporated under the laws of any state.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that federally chartered corporations are not citizens of any state for diversity purposes absent unusual circumstances. The plaintiff initially argued for a judge-made expansion of diversity jurisdiction but later abandoned this theory in favor of a statutory argument based on § 1332(c)(1). The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that diversity jurisdiction was not established because the statute does not extend state citizenship to federally chartered corporations. The court also denied the plaintiff’s post-judgment motions for reconsideration and to reopen the case to pursue possible federal claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that § 1332(c)(1) applies only to corporations incorporated by a state or foreign state, not to federally chartered corporations. The court reasoned that the statute’s principal-place-of-business provision does not operate independently of the state-of-incorporation provision, and Congress did not intend to expand diversity jurisdiction to reach federally chartered corporations generally. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its refusal to reconsider or reopen the case. View "Schneiderman v. American Chemical Society" on Justia Law

A former member of a city council in Brecksville, Ohio, who owned a roofing company, participated in several council votes related to the construction of a new police station. His company was selected as the roofing subcontractor for the project, but he did not disclose his financial interest to the council. After his ownership came to light through the mayor’s review of project documents, the mayor and the city law director reported his actions to the Ohio Ethics Commission. The Ethics Commission investigated and ultimately referred the matter to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, resulting in a grand jury indictment on charges of unlawful interest in a public contract. The councilmember was acquitted after a bench trial. He alleged that the city officials had initiated the ethics complaint in retaliation for his public criticism of the council’s handling of a separate debt issue and that the officials had made false statements or omitted material facts in their communications with the Ethics Commission.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the individual officials and the city on all claims. On appeal, the plaintiff limited his arguments to his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliatory prosecution and malicious prosecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the grand jury indictment established a presumption of probable cause that the plaintiff was unable to rebut. The court found that, because the plaintiff voted on ordinances advancing the contract in which he had a financial interest, he could not invoke the relevant statutory affirmative defense. Additionally, the court ruled that the exception in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018), did not apply, as the facts and legal context differed. The Sixth Circuit therefore affirmed the dismissal of all claims. View "Petsche v. Hruby" on Justia Law

Two former police officers sued their employer, the Puerto Rico Police Department, alleging illegal retaliation after one reported age discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the other testified in support. The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, they suffered adverse employment actions such as dangerous shift changes, loss of duties, and fabricated complaints. The challenged conduct primarily occurred after Puerto Rico filed for financial reorganization under PROMESA, a federal statute enacted in response to the Commonwealth’s fiscal crisis.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico presided over the case while Puerto Rico’s reorganization plan was pending in the Title III court. After the reorganization plan’s "Effective Date" passed, and while the plaintiffs’ suit was ongoing, the Department asserted that the claims had been discharged under the plan because the plaintiffs had not timely filed proofs of claim. The District Court agreed, permanently stayed the case, and enjoined the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims, finding that the claims must have arisen at least in part before the plan’s Effective Date since the suit was filed prior to that date. The District Court did not address the plaintiffs' judicial estoppel argument or their contention that post-petition claims were not dischargeable.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment, but on different grounds. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ retaliation claims qualified as administrative expense claims under PROMESA (via incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code), and because the plaintiffs did not timely file such claims before the administrative claims bar date, they were discharged by the plan. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' judicial estoppel argument, finding no inconsistency in the Department’s litigation positions. The First Circuit’s judgment affirmed the permanent stay and injunction. View "Villalobos-Santana v. PR Police Department" on Justia Law

A group of prisoners in Illinois sued the state’s Department of Corrections, alleging that they were provided with inadequate medical and dental care, which they claimed violated the Eighth Amendment. The class was certified, and the parties reached a settlement that led to the entry of a consent decree. This decree required the Department to prepare an implementation plan, with oversight and recommendations from an independent monitor, to address the systemic deficiencies identified. Over time, disagreements arose regarding the adequacy and specificity of the Department’s proposals, and the monitor’s recommendations were largely adopted by the court after finding the Department in contempt for noncompliance.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, approved and amended the consent decree, eventually adopting the implementation plan as part of it. The Department then filed several motions under Rule 60(b) to modify the consent decree, including requests to remove stipulations about compliance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and to excise or terminate the implementation plan. The court denied these requests, but did acknowledge changed circumstances and amended the decree to clarify that the implementation plan would only be enforceable if the court made findings required by the PLRA. The court also extended the term of the consent decree due to the Department’s lack of substantial compliance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to review some orders, such as the denial of the motion to strike the stipulation and the extension of the decree, as these did not substantially alter the parties’ legal relationship. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions regarding the implementation plan, holding that its terms are not enforceable unless and until the district court makes the factual findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the PLRA. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Lippert v Hughes" on Justia Law

Kenneth Karwacki was convicted by a special court martial of delivering peyote to fellow soldiers and received a bad-conduct discharge from military service. Later, he applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Wisconsin. The state denied his application under Wis. Stat. §941.29(1m)(b), which bars firearm possession by anyone convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in Wisconsin. Although the military court labeled his offense a misdemeanor, Wisconsin classified his conduct as a felony under its own laws.Karwacki brought a federal lawsuit, arguing that Wisconsin’s decision to treat his military misdemeanor conviction as a state-law felony violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution and his Second Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered judgment in favor of the state, rejecting Karwacki’s claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Seventh Circuit held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not apply to federal court martial convictions because such proceedings are not “judicial Proceedings of any other State,” nor has Congress prescribed any effect for court martial judgments in the states. The court also concluded that Wisconsin did not fail to give effect to the court martial’s judgment, as it imposed only collateral consequences under state law. Addressing the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that neither the federal nor Wisconsin’s statutory scheme is facially invalid, and that individuals convicted of distributing illegal drugs are not entitled to as-applied relief from firearms disabilities. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed. View "Karwacki v Kaul" on Justia Law

A condominium unit was owned by Diane Marchetti, who did not reside in the unit but allowed her daughter, Caroline Thibeault, and Thibeault’s son to occupy it. The condominium’s association initiated a foreclosure action against Marchetti alleging she was in default for failing to pay assessments, fines, and fees—some of which related to Thibeault’s alleged commercial use of the unit. Thibeault’s son has a disability, and both Thibeault and Marchetti asserted that the association had failed to provide reasonable accommodation under federal and state disability laws.After the foreclosure action commenced in the Sagadahoc County Superior Court, Marchetti filed an answer and raised several defenses, including alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act. Thibeault, who was not a party to the action, then moved to intervene, claiming both a direct interest in the property and statutory civil rights at stake. She sought intervention as of right or, alternatively, permissive intervention, arguing her interests were not adequately represented and that her defenses raised common questions of law and fact with the main action. The Superior Court denied her motion to intervene on both grounds, finding her interest insufficient and noting that her mother’s defenses already encompassed her concerns.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the order denying intervention. The court held that Thibeault did not satisfy the criteria for intervention as of right under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because she lacked a direct, legally protectable interest in the foreclosure action, her ability to protect her interests would not be impaired by denial, and her interests were adequately represented by Marchetti. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because Thibeault’s participation would be duplicative and cause undue delay. The order denying intervention was affirmed. View "Oak Hill Condominiums v. Marchetti" on Justia Law