Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Tam Steven Nguyen committed various crimes at the age of 22 and was convicted in 2003 of attempted murder, kidnapping, and assault with a firearm. He was sentenced to a determinate term of 14 years, an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, and a life term with the possibility of parole. While incarcerated, Nguyen earned various credits, including good conduct and educational merit credits. These credits were applied to his minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) and youth parole eligible date (YPED), respectively.Nguyen petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus in 2022, arguing that he should be able to use all types of credits to advance his YPED, not just educational merit credit. The trial court denied his petition. Nguyen then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, which summarily denied the petition. The California Supreme Court granted review, ordered the appellate court to vacate its order, and issued an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and held that Nguyen's right to equal protection was not violated. The court found that youth and nonyouth offenders are not similarly situated for the purposes of the challenged regulations, as youth offenders have two parole eligibility dates (MEPD and YPED) while nonyouth offenders have only one (MEPD). The court also determined that there is a rational basis for the regulation that limits the types of credits that can advance a youth offender's YPED, as it aligns with the legislative intent to provide a fixed and relatively stable parole eligibility date for youth offenders. Consequently, the court denied Nguyen's petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Nguyen" on Justia Law

In 2005, Delano Hale was sentenced to death by an Ohio court for the murder of Douglas Green. Green was found dead in a motel room, wrapped in plastic bags, and had been shot multiple times. Hale was arrested driving Green's stolen vehicle and later admitted to the shooting, claiming it was in self-defense against Green's sexual advances. Hale was convicted of aggravated murder and other charges, and the jury recommended the death penalty.Hale's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio Court of Appeals. Hale filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. He then sought federal habeas relief, raising multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing errors under Blakely v. Washington.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Hale's habeas petition. The court denied Hale's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that his trial counsel's decision not to call a forensic expert was a reasonable strategic choice. The court noted that Hale's counsel had considered hiring an expert but ultimately chose a different strategy, which did not constitute deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington.The court also denied Hale's claim regarding his noncapital sentences, which were enhanced based on judicial factfinding in violation of Blakely. The Ohio Supreme Court had reviewed this claim for plain error and found no prejudice, concluding that a jury would have reached the same sentencing conclusions. The Sixth Circuit found this determination reasonable and upheld the Ohio Supreme Court's decision.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Hale's habeas petition, concluding that Hale's claims did not warrant relief under the deferential standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). View "Hale v. Cool" on Justia Law

Charles Leonhardt, a pretrial detainee at the Big Horn County Jail, suffered from back pain and was eventually diagnosed with two lower back infections after being transported to a hospital. He sued Big Horn County Sheriff Ken Blackburn, Jail Captain Debbie Cook, unnamed detention officers, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office, and the Jail, alleging negligence and deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment.The District Court of Big Horn County granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. The court found that Sheriff Blackburn had fulfilled his duty to arrange for medical care by contracting with Midway Medical Clinic, which provided medical services to inmates. The court also determined that the actions of Sheriff Blackburn, Captain Cook, and the detention officers were reasonable and did not proximately cause Mr. Leonhardt’s injuries. Additionally, the court found no evidence of deliberate indifference to Mr. Leonhardt’s medical needs, as the defendants ensured he received timely medical care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the negligence claim, as the defendants acted reasonably and provided Mr. Leonhardt with access to medical care. The court also found no evidence that the defendants were aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Leonhardt’s health, thus failing to meet the subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both the negligence and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. View "Leonhardt v. Big Horn County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Matthew Fuller was convicted of possessing more than two ounces but less than one-half pound of marijuana, a felony, and was placed on supervised probation. After two subsequent arrests, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. The court appointed two attorneys for Fuller, both of whom withdrew. The court did not appoint a third attorney and conducted the revocation hearing with Fuller representing himself. Fuller was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced to a previously suspended two-year prison term.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Fuller was arrested following a traffic stop and charged with marijuana possession. He was released on bond and represented by multiple attorneys who withdrew. Fuller pled guilty to a lesser charge, and the court imposed a suspended sentence with probation. After his subsequent arrests, the court ordered him held without bond pending the revocation hearing. Fuller’s attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and the court did not appoint new counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that while Fuller was entitled to appointed counsel under state law, he did not demonstrate that the lack of counsel prejudiced the outcome of the revocation hearing. The court found sufficient evidence to support the probation violation, including Fuller’s use of methamphetamine. The court also rejected Fuller’s claims of judicial bias and due process violations, affirming the lower court’s decision to revoke his probation and execute the suspended sentence. View "State V. Fuller" on Justia Law

In 2021, a 14-year-old named Emanuel Ochoa was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 6, injury to a child causing serious mental injury, and kidnapping, all related to the sexual assault of a five-year-old girl. The key issue in this case was whether Ochoa's statements to law enforcement were made voluntarily. The court concluded that they were not.The trial court denied Ochoa's motion to suppress his statements, ruling that they were voluntary. The Second Court of Appeals upheld this decision, finding that Ochoa was not in custody during the pre-warnings portion of the interview and that his post-warnings statements were voluntary. The court noted that Ochoa and his mother went to the interview voluntarily, he was told he could leave at any time, and his freedom of movement was not restricted. The court also found that the statements made by the magistrate and the Texas Ranger did not render Ochoa's confession involuntary.The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed the case and reversed the court of appeals' judgment. The court held that Ochoa's confession was involuntary under due process principles. The court emphasized that Ochoa's youth, lack of maturity, and inexperience with the legal system made him particularly vulnerable to coercive interrogation tactics. The court found that the combined effect of the Texas Ranger's misleading statements and the magistrate's incorrect information about Ochoa's rights overbore his will and rendered his confession involuntary. The case was remanded to the court of appeals for a harm analysis. View "OCHOA v. STATE OF TEXAS" on Justia Law

Brandon Williams was involved in a series of interactions with Norfolk, Virginia police officers. Initially, Officer John D. McClanahan falsely charged Williams with misdemeanor trespassing and perjured himself at trial to secure a conviction. Williams appealed and used a recording to expose McClanahan's perjury, leading to the dismissal of the charge by the state appellate court. Two weeks later, Williams was hit by a speeding drunk driver, and responding officers, including McClanahan, allegedly falsified the accident report to deprive Williams of his right to sue the other driver.Williams filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims of retaliation for exercising his First and Sixth Amendment rights, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The district court dismissed Williams' retaliation claim, finding he failed to plead an adverse action, and dismissed his conspiracy claim for lack of a constitutional violation. The court also dismissed Williams' state law IIED claims without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Williams adequately alleged that the officers' intentional misrepresentation on the accident report would likely deter him from recording police activity and defending himself at trial in the future. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of his retaliation claim. The court also vacated the dismissal of his conspiracy claim, finding a plausible constitutional violation, and remanded the claim for reconsideration. Finally, the court vacated the dismissal of Williams' IIED claims and remanded them for further consideration. View "Williams v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

In March 2019, a group of teenage boys entered a vacant house in a high-crime neighborhood to play with BB guns. A concerned neighbor called 911, reporting several Black men entering the house, one of whom had dreads and was carrying a gun. Officer Kyle Holcomb and his colleague responded to the call. Shortly after arriving, Holcomb shot and injured 14-year-old Lorenzo Clerkley, who was unarmed and had his hands up. Clerkley sued Holcomb under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. Holcomb claimed his use of force was reasonable, asserting he saw Clerkley pointing a gun at him.The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma reviewed the evidence, including body-camera footage and statements from both parties. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Holcomb fired at Clerkley when he could see Clerkley did not have a gun or anything in his hand. The court held that Holcomb’s use of force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law and denied his motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Holcomb’s use of deadly force was unconstitutional because Clerkley was unarmed and posed no threat. The court also held that the law prohibiting the use of deadly force against an unarmed, nonthreatening person was clearly established at the time of the incident. Therefore, Holcomb was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Clerkley v. Holcomb" on Justia Law

The case involves the Hawai‘i Disability Rights Center (HDRC), which represents individuals with developmental disabilities, including children with autism. HDRC alleges that the Hawai‘i Departments of Education (DOE) and Human Services (DHS) unlawfully deny students with autism access to Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy during school hours, even when medically necessary. DOE provides ABA services only if deemed educationally relevant, and DHS does not provide ABA services during school hours, even if medically necessary and covered by Medicaid or private insurance.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of DOE and DHS, holding that HDRC's failure to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was fatal to all its claims, including those under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Medicaid Act. The court concluded that HDRC, as a protection and advocacy organization, must ensure that parents of its constituents exhaust the IDEA’s administrative process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that HDRC, as Hawai‘i’s designated protection and advocacy system, can pursue administrative remedies under the IDEA and is therefore bound by the IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement for its own claim. However, HDRC need not ensure that parents of individual children with autism exhaust their individual IDEA claims. The court found that HDRC did not exhaust its administrative remedies, and no exceptions to IDEA exhaustion applied.The Ninth Circuit also held that HDRC was not required to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures before bringing its claims under the ADA, Section 504, and the Medicaid Act. The court concluded that HDRC’s non-IDEA claims do not allege the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and therefore do not require exhaustion under the IDEA. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. View "HAWAI'I DISABILITY RIGHTS CRT. V. KISHIMOTO" on Justia Law

Anthony Lemicy was convicted by a jury on four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district court sentenced him to consecutive 30-year terms for each count, totaling 120 years. Lemicy appealed, raising several claims including improper waiver of his right to counsel, violation of his right to a fair trial due to appearing in an orange jumpsuit and restraints, improper jury instructions, insufficient evidence, incorrect calculation of criminal history points, and an unreasonable sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri initially appointed a federal public defender for Lemicy, but after conflicts, he chose to represent himself with standby counsel. The court repeatedly informed him of the risks and limitations of self-representation, which he acknowledged. During the trial, Lemicy appeared in jail-issued clothing by choice, despite the court offering him the opportunity to change. The jury was instructed to disregard his appearance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It found that Lemicy knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and the district court did not err in its handling of standby counsel. The court also determined that Lemicy was not compelled to wear the orange jumpsuit and any error was invited by him. The jury instructions were deemed appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court upheld the calculation of criminal history points and found the sentence reasonable, given the severity of the offenses and the involvement of multiple victims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that there were no violations of Lemicy’s constitutional rights and that the sentence imposed was within the court’s discretion. View "United States v. Lemicy" on Justia Law