Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Kenneth Anderson, Jr. was involved in a car accident in Harris County, Texas, and was found by Deputy Crystal Estrada in a drug-induced state. Anderson was initially compliant but later became uncooperative and resisted officers' attempts to secure him in a police vehicle. Deputy Mohanad Alobaidi used a taser in drive-stun mode on Anderson multiple times during the struggle. Anderson was later found unresponsive and pronounced dead at the hospital.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed several claims against the officers but allowed an excessive force claim against Alobaidi and bystander liability claims against the other officers to proceed. The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity on these claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Alobaidi's use of force was not objectively unreasonable given Anderson's active resistance, the seriousness of the DUI offense, and the threat posed to the officers. The court concluded that Alobaidi's actions were measured and proportional to Anderson's escalating resistance, and therefore did not violate Anderson's Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the bystander liability claims against the other officers were also dismissed. View "Anderson v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Marqus Patton was convicted by a Nebraska jury of first-degree murder and using a deadly weapon during a robbery following the attempted robbery and fatal shooting of Kristopher Winters. Patton filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), alleging that his due process rights were violated because the State failed to disclose tacit plea agreements with two witnesses, Emily Gusman and Drake Northrop, who testified against him at trial.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Patton’s habeas petition but granted a certificate of appealability. The district court was skeptical about the absence of agreements but concluded that the Nebraska Supreme Court’s finding that no tacit plea agreements existed was not unreasonable. The district court also found that any undisclosed agreements would not have been material to the trial's outcome due to the extensive cross-examination of the witnesses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the Nebraska Supreme Court had determined there were no tacit plea agreements, and this conclusion was not unreasonable based on the evidence. The court emphasized that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a state court’s factual determinations are presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Eighth Circuit found that the evidence supported either conclusion regarding the existence of tacit plea agreements and that the state court’s determination was reasonable.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Patton’s habeas petition, concluding that the state court’s adjudication did not involve an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Patton v. Boyd" on Justia Law

After a welfare check was requested by his fiancée, Joseph Maser was involved in a standoff with police at his suburban Iowa home. Maser had threatened suicide, fired a gun inside his house, and was reportedly intoxicated with access to firearms. Officers attempted to negotiate with Maser for nearly an hour, during which Maser became increasingly agitated and made threats. Maser exited his garage holding a rifle, ignored commands to drop the weapon, and raised the rifle outward from his body. Officer Joshua Van Brocklin, perceiving a threat, shot Maser twice in the chest. Maser survived and subsequently brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Officer Van Brocklin used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.Initially, Maser filed suit in state court against Officer Van Brocklin, the City of Coralville, and other officers, asserting both state and federal claims. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Following a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court in Burnett v. Smith, which foreclosed excessive force claims under the Iowa Constitution, the district court granted summary judgment on those claims. The district court also granted summary judgment for Officer Van Brocklin on the federal excessive force claim, finding no constitutional violation and awarding qualified immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, Officer Van Brocklin’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable because Maser’s actions—raising a rifle outward after repeated noncompliance and threats—created an imminent threat of serious harm. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that Maser’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. View "Maser v. City of Coralville, IA" on Justia Law

Steve Eggleston sued Clark County and Georgina Stuart, a social worker, alleging violations of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Eggleston claimed that Stuart coerced him into signing temporary guardianship papers for his children during an ongoing child abuse/neglect investigation by threatening that his children would be permanently removed from his care if he did not comply. Stuart and Clark County moved for summary judgment, arguing that their actions were protected by qualified immunity and discretionary-act immunity. The district court denied their motion.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada denied the motion for summary judgment, leading Stuart and Clark County to file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Stuart's conduct violated clearly established law and whether her actions were protected by discretionary-act immunity.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and granted the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Stuart was entitled to qualified immunity on Eggleston's substantive and procedural due process claims because her conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. The court also held that Stuart was entitled to discretionary-act immunity on Eggleston's IIED claim, as her actions involved individual judgment and were based on considerations of social policy. The court directed the district court to vacate the order denying summary judgment and to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of Stuart and Clark County. View "Clark County v. District Court" on Justia Law

Brandon Duane Wagstaff was convicted by a jury of felony false imprisonment and related offenses stemming from a domestic violence incident. The trial court sentenced him to 16 months in prison. Wagstaff, who is Black, claimed that the trial court violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA) during various stages of the proceedings. However, his trial counsel did not object to these statements under the RJA, leading to the forfeiture of these claims on appeal. Wagstaff also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a specific statement made by the trial court at sentencing, but the appellate court found this claim to be without merit.In the lower court, the prosecution charged Wagstaff with five counts, including felony false imprisonment, attempted second-degree robbery, contempt of court, threatening to commit a crime, and battery upon a person in a dating relationship. The jury found him guilty on four counts but acquitted him of attempted robbery. Wagstaff admitted to a prior conviction, and the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of nine years and four months, including a term from a separate case.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Wagstaff's claims under the RJA were forfeited due to the lack of objections by his trial counsel. The court also concluded that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on misdemeanor false imprisonment as a lesser included offense was not erroneous because there was no substantial evidence to support such an instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in Wagstaff's claims. View "P. v. Wagstaff" on Justia Law

A transgender girl, D.P., and her mother challenged a new policy by the Mukwonago Area School District that required D.P. to use the boys’ bathroom or a gender-neutral alternative. They argued that the policy violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. They filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the policy's enforcement during litigation, citing the precedent set by Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the temporary restraining order and, shortly after, converted it to a preliminary injunction without holding a hearing. The judge found that the case was controlled by the Whitaker precedent and concluded that D.P. was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. The school district appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and urging the court to overrule Whitaker and a related case, A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an evidentiary hearing is not always required before issuing a preliminary injunction, especially when the opponent does not request one or identify material factual disputes. The court also declined to revisit or overrule Whitaker and Martinsville, reaffirming that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction based on binding circuit precedent. The court concluded that the slight differences in D.P.'s case did not warrant a different outcome. View "Doe v Mukwonago Area School District" on Justia Law

A.J.T., a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy, moved to Minnesota in 2015. Her new school district, Osseo Area Public Schools, denied her parents' requests to include evening instruction in her Individualized Educational Program (IEP), despite her inability to attend school before noon due to frequent morning seizures. Consequently, A.J.T. received only 4.25 hours of instruction daily, compared to the typical 6.5-hour school day for nondisabled students. After further cuts to her school day were proposed, her parents filed an IDEA complaint, alleging that the refusal to provide afterhours instruction denied A.J.T. a free appropriate public education.An Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of A.J.T., finding that the school district violated the IDEA and ordered compensatory education and evening instruction. The Federal District Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. However, when A.J.T. and her parents sued under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, the District Court granted summary judgment for the school, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, stating that a plaintiff must prove bad faith or gross misjudgment by school officials to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of bad faith or gross misjudgment. Instead, they are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279" on Justia Law

In 2015, Shirley Carter was found dead in her home from gunshot wounds. Jason Carter, her son, was later found civilly liable for her wrongful death. Following this, Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation Agent Mark Ludwick and Marion County Deputy Sheriff Reed Kious arrested Jason for first-degree murder. However, Jason was acquitted in a jury trial. Jason then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Ludwick and Kious, alleging violations of his constitutional and state-law rights during the investigation of his mother's murder.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed Jason's complaint, granting Ludwick and Kious qualified immunity on all federal claims and ruling that Jason failed to state a claim for his state law claims. The court also dismissed Marion County from the suit, as Jason did not allege a pattern of unconstitutional conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Ludwick and Kious were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Jason failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation for false arrest, as the arrest was conducted pursuant to a facially valid warrant. The court also held that Jason's claim of evidence concealment did not constitute a clearly established constitutional violation. Additionally, the court ruled that Jason's failure-to-investigate claim did not meet the threshold for a substantive due process violation. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Jason's state law claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, noting the presence of probable cause and the lack of improper motive. View "Carter v. Ludwick" on Justia Law

Joe Feazell, an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center, sued his doctor, Andrew Tilden, and the prison’s healthcare contractor, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., alleging deliberate indifference to his hemorrhoid condition and significant gastrointestinal bleeding, violating the Eighth Amendment. Feazell claimed that Dr. Tilden failed to respond promptly to his abnormal lab results and adequately treat his hemorrhoids, while Wexford's treatment protocol was ineffective and deliberately indifferent.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, who later granted summary judgment for Wexford and partial summary judgment for Dr. Tilden. Feazell went to trial on his remaining claim against Dr. Tilden but was barred from testifying about his medical diagnoses or their causes. The jury returned a verdict for the defense.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's summary judgment decision, finding no evidence that Wexford's Collegial Review policy caused Feazell to receive deficient care or that Dr. Tilden was aware of Feazell's hemorrhoids before the colonoscopy. The court also upheld the magistrate judge's evidentiary rulings, barring Feazell from testifying about medical diagnoses or causation, as he was not qualified to provide such testimony.The Seventh Circuit concluded that Feazell failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding Wexford's policy causing a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and that Dr. Tilden was not deliberately indifferent to Feazell's medical needs. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Feazell v Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

On June 1, 2018, Officer Jonathan Guzman of the City of Miami Police Department identified a speeding driver in a black Jeep Compass. The driver crashed into another vehicle and fled on foot. During an inventory search of the Jeep, Guzman found a firearm, ammunition, and marijuana. Shortly after, a radio dispatch reported the vehicle as stolen. Officer Michael Bloom arrived at the scene of the reported theft, where Samuel Scott Jr. claimed his Jeep had been stolen. Guzman arrived and recognized Scott as the driver who fled the crash. Scott was arrested for multiple charges, including reckless driving and falsely reporting a crime. The charges were later dropped.Scott filed federal and state law claims in the Southern District of Florida against the officers and the City of Miami, alleging unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing qualified and sovereign immunity, and found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Scott based on Guzman’s eyewitness identification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Guzman’s eyewitness identification provided sufficient probable cause for Scott’s arrest. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and that the City of Miami was not liable under state law due to the presence of probable cause. Consequently, all of Scott’s claims were dismissed. View "Scott v. City of Miami" on Justia Law