Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Melissa Myers, an instructional aide at an elementary school in the Sunman-Dearborn Community Schools, took FMLA leave at the end of the 2017-2018 school year due to grief from her husband's death. Upon returning for the 2018-2019 school year, she exceeded her paid leave days within the first two months. The school principal, Kelly Roth, warned her about her attendance, leading Myers to resign and subsequently sue the school district and Roth for violations of the FMLA, ADA, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that Myers was neither eligible for FMLA leave nor had a qualifying condition in the weeks before her resignation. Additionally, she did not notify the school district of her intent to take statutory leave. The court also rejected her "anticipatory retaliation" theory due to insufficient evidence. The ADA claim failed because Myers did not experience an adverse employment action, and her working conditions were not objectively intolerable to constitute constructive discharge. The equal-protection claim was dismissed for lack of proof of differential treatment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Myers did not meet the eligibility requirements for FMLA leave, lacked evidence of a serious health condition, and failed to provide sufficient notice of intent to take FMLA leave. The court also found no evidence of constructive discharge under the ADA, as her working conditions were not intolerable, and there was no imminent threat of termination. Lastly, the equal-protection claim was dismissed due to the absence of evidence showing that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. View "Myers v. Sunman-Dearborn Community Schools" on Justia Law

Demmerick Brown, an inmate at Red Onion State Prison in Virginia, violated the prison’s COVID-19 policy by removing his face mask to get a shave at the barber shop. As a result, the prison fined him fifteen dollars, which was deducted from his prison trust account. Brown claimed that he was not provided the necessary forms to present evidence and call witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, and his request to postpone the hearing was denied. He was found guilty and fined.Brown sued three prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed his case, concluding that Brown lacked a property interest in the money in his prison trust account, and thus, the fine did not trigger due process protections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal, holding that inmates do have a property interest in the money in their prison trust accounts, as established in Henderson v. Harmon. The court found that the fifteen-dollar fine deprived Brown of this property interest, and thus, the Due Process Clause was applicable. The court rejected the argument that the fine was de minimis, noting its significance within the prison context.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine what process was due and whether any errors in Brown’s disciplinary proceedings were harmless. View "Brown v. Stapleton" on Justia Law

Joel Aaron Burrell, a prisoner, filed a lawsuit against several correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Burrell sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows indigent prisoners to file lawsuits without prepaying filing fees. The district court denied his request, citing the three-strike rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which prevents prisoners from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three prior lawsuits dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The district court identified three such dismissals in Burrell's case history and dismissed his current action when he did not pay the filing fee.Burrell appealed, arguing that two of the prior dismissals should not count as strikes. The first case was dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state proceedings. The second case was dismissed after Burrell failed to amend his complaint following a court order that found his initial complaint failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that a dismissal under Younger abstention does not count as a strike because it does not assess the merits of the complaint. Regarding the second case, the court determined that while a failure to amend following a finding of failure to state a claim can count as a strike, it should not be counted if the dismissal occurred after the current lawsuit was filed.The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in applying the three-strike rule to Burrell's case. Since Burrell had only one valid strike at the time he filed the current lawsuit, the district court's dismissal was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Burrell v. Shirley" on Justia Law

In March 1988, Isaiah Harris, a sheriff in Montgomery County, Alabama, was killed. His wife, Louise, was having an affair and conspired with her lover, Lorenzo McCarter, to have Harris killed for insurance money. McCarter recruited Michael Sockwell and Alex Hood to carry out the murder. Sockwell was later convicted of capital murder for pecuniary gain and sentenced to death.Sockwell appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecution used peremptory strikes to exclude Black jurors in a discriminatory manner, violating Batson v. Kentucky. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) affirmed his conviction, finding no clear error in the trial court’s denial of the Batson challenge. The Alabama Supreme Court also affirmed, stating that the prosecutor’s identification of a juror’s race was merely descriptive and not a race-based reason for the strike.Sockwell then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which was denied. The district court found the strike of a Black juror, Eric Davis, problematic but concluded that the Alabama Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Batson. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the Batson issue, and Sockwell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.The Eleventh Circuit held that the Alabama Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law by not properly considering all relevant circumstances under Batson’s third step. The court found that the prosecutor’s history of Batson violations, statistical evidence of disproportionate strikes against Black jurors, and the comparison of Davis to similarly situated white jurors indicated purposeful discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and directed it to issue a writ of habeas corpus, allowing Alabama the right to retry Sockwell. View "Sockwell v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

The defendant, Manuel Diaz, was subjected to an unlawful traffic stop by Officer Mark Shlosser of the Wilbraham police department. Upon being stopped, Diaz fled in his car, lost control, and then fled on foot into the woods, where drugs were later found along his path. Diaz was charged with trafficking cocaine, and his motion to suppress the drugs and evidence of identity obtained from his car was denied.In the Superior Court, Diaz's motion to suppress was initially denied despite the judge finding the stop unjustified under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the Fourth Amendment. The judge concluded that Diaz's flight was an independent intervening act, triggering the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule. Diaz's motion for reconsideration was also denied after a Long hearing, where the judge reaffirmed that the attenuation exception applied.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the attenuation exception did not apply to either the art. 14 violation or the equal protection violation under arts. 1 and 10. The court found that the temporal proximity between the stop and Diaz's flight, the lack of credible justification for the stop, and the inherently flagrant nature of racially selective traffic enforcement weighed against attenuation. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's denial of Diaz's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the unlawful stop. View "Commonwealth v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Officer Alexandra Weaver took a fourteen-year-old child, J.M., from her home during a child welfare investigation. The child and her parents sued, claiming Weaver searched the apartment and seized the child in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Weaver appealed the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity and denied summary judgment on three claims: the Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search of the apartment, J.M.’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure, and the Fourteenth Amendment claim for procedural due process. Weaver then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances, and no other exception applied. The court also found that J.M. was seized without a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances, violating her Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the court held that the procedural due process claim was valid because J.M. was seized without a court order or exigent circumstances, and this violation was clearly established by precedent.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity on any of the claims and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. View "McMurry v. Weaver" on Justia Law

In 2020, allegations emerged that certain officers in the Vallejo Police Department were bending the points of their badges after using potentially lethal force. The department hired an independent investigator to look into these claims but did not release the investigation's findings. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) requested records related to the investigation under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The department released some records but withheld the investigative report, claiming it was a confidential personnel record.The ACLU filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Solano County Superior Court, challenging the department's response. The court ordered the disclosure of parts of the investigative report and related materials, with redactions to protect the identities of officers, witnesses, and their families. Both parties sought writ review of this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the documents sought by the ACLU were not confidential personnel records but were subject to public disclosure under section 832.7, subdivision (b) of the Penal Code. This section pertains to records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of incidents involving the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer. The court also found that the redaction of officer names could not be sustained on the grounds relied upon by the superior court. However, due to the extensive volume of potentially disclosable materials and minimal briefing on redaction issues, the court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding redactions. View "City of Vallejo v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Anthony Sullers, Sr., an African American elevator mechanic, filed a lawsuit against his union, the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (IUEC), alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation in handling his claim of racial discrimination by his employer, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation (TKE). Sullers and another employee were laid off, and while Sullers was without work, TKE hired a white mechanic. Sullers informed the union of his layoff and his belief that it was racially motivated. The union filed a grievance on his behalf but did not include allegations of racial discrimination. Sullers followed the union's advice to file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of IUEC. The court found that the union had fulfilled its duty of fair representation by obtaining the maximum remedy available for Sullers, including his reinstatement and backpay. The court also noted that Sullers had not requested the union to file a racial discrimination grievance and that the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the union's decision to pursue the grievance as it did, rather than filing a racial discrimination grievance, was within its discretion and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The court also found that Sullers did not suffer harm attributable to the union's actions, as he was reinstated and received backpay. The court concluded that the union had properly represented Sullers and that he had not shown how he would have achieved a better outcome through arbitration. View "Sullers v. International Union Elevator Constructors, Local 2" on Justia Law

On January 22, 2021, officers from the Coeur d’Alene Police Department were patrolling the downtown bar district when they observed James Mark Popp sitting in a parked car and flicking cigarette ash out the window. The officers approached Popp, requested his identification, and subsequently conducted a search after a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the presence of controlled substances. The search revealed cocaine, leading to Popp’s arrest and charges for possession of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and littering.The District Court of the First Judicial District of Idaho denied Popp’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, ruling that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Popp for littering under local and state laws. Popp entered a conditional guilty plea to the possession charge, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, agreeing that the officers had reasonable suspicion under Idaho Code section 18-7031.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and concluded that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Popp under Idaho Code section 18-7031. The court found that the officers’ observation of Popp flicking cigarette ash in a private parking lot did not constitute reasonable suspicion of littering, as there was no evidence that the property owner prohibited such conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s order denying the motion to suppress, vacated Popp’s judgment of conviction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Popp" on Justia Law

Eugene Sikora, a former prisoner, claims that the State of Iowa failed to release him from prison when his sentence was over. He was convicted of three felonies in 2016 and sentenced to concurrent five-year terms, which were suspended for probation. In 2017, his probation was revoked, and he was imprisoned until March 2019. Sikora alleges that due to a miscalculation, he was imprisoned for nearly five months longer than allowed, as the defendants did not credit him for 292 days served in county jails and a custodial residential center.Sikora filed a suit over three years after his release, seeking money damages for wrongful imprisonment. He named the State of Iowa and the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections as defendants, asserting five tort claims, including violations of his constitutional rights and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing sovereign immunity and other defenses. The district court dismissed some of Sikora’s claims but allowed others to proceed. However, after the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Burnett v. Smith, which overruled the precedent allowing constitutional tort claims, the district court dismissed Sikora’s remaining claims and denied his motion to amend his petition to add new defendants and claims.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that sovereign immunity barred Sikora’s claims. The court concluded that all of Sikora’s claims were essentially false imprisonment claims, which are barred by sovereign immunity under Iowa Code section 669.14(4). The court also rejected Sikora’s arguments that constitutional torts and claims against individual state employees could proceed, emphasizing that the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA) provides the exclusive mechanism for such claims and explicitly prohibits claims based on false imprisonment. View "Sikora v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law