Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Benjamin Benfer and his wife were pulled over by Officer Barry Calvert for allegedly running a red light and because their vehicle matched the description of a stolen car. A confrontation ensued, during which Calvert used his K-9 to subdue Benfer. Both Benfer and his wife were arrested and charged with resisting arrest and interference with public duties, but the charges were later dismissed.Benfer filed a lawsuit against Calvert and the City of Baytown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, claiming violations of his constitutional rights and state tort claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, ruling that Calvert did not violate Benfer’s constitutional rights, that Benfer’s state tort claims were not valid under Texas law, and that Benfer did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Calvert had reasonable suspicion to stop Benfer, probable cause to arrest him for resisting arrest, and did not use excessive force in deploying his K-9. The court also found that Benfer’s state law assault claim against Calvert was barred by the Texas Tort Claims Act, which requires such claims to be brought against the municipality, not the individual officer. Additionally, the court ruled that Benfer failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims against the City of Baytown for inadequate policies, failure to train, and ratification of Calvert’s conduct. View "Benfer v. City of Baytown" on Justia Law

Deputy James Killian responded to a domestic disturbance call at the home of Rubicela Ramirez and Francisco Gonzales. Upon arrival, Killian heard sounds suggesting a fight and entered the home without a warrant. Within the first minute, he pepper-sprayed Ramirez and Gonzales and shot their two dogs. Ramirez and Gonzales filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of their Fourth Amendment rights due to warrantless entry, excessive force, and unreasonable seizure of their dog.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Killian on the warrantless entry and excessive force claims, citing qualified immunity. However, the court allowed the unreasonable seizure claim regarding the shooting of one of the dogs to proceed to trial. The jury found Killian liable and awarded damages to Ramirez and Gonzales. Killian then moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted, overturning the jury's verdict.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the warrantless entry claim, agreeing that exigent circumstances justified Killian's entry. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the excessive force claims, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Killian's use of pepper spray and physical force was excessive and unreasonable. The court also reversed the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the unreasonable seizure claim, reinstating the jury's verdict. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the excessive force claims. View "Ramirez v. Killian" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Erin Bulfin, who sued St. Louis County and several employees of St. Louis County Animal Care & Control (ACC) after her pet dog, Daisy, was euthanized at ACC. Bulfin's dog had bitten her daughter, requiring hospitalization. Following the incident, Bulfin's husband, Edward Nea, took Daisy to ACC. The details of the conversation between Nea and ACC employees are disputed, but it is undisputed that Nea signed a form authorizing the euthanasia of Daisy. The next day, Bulfin went to ACC to pick up Daisy for home quarantine and was informed that Daisy had been euthanized.The district court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, concluding that Bulfin's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the defendants reasonably relied on the apparent consent of Bulfin's husband to euthanize Daisy. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the County on Bulfin's federal municipal liability claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bulfin's state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that when ACC accepted custody of Daisy, that was not a seizure because it is undisputed Bulfin approved of Daisy being quarantined in ACC custody after biting her daughter. The court also held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity unless the evidence established a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights that was clearly established at the time of the violation. The court concluded that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred and that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established authority holding that government officials violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing and destroying an effect with the consent of a person who reasonably has actual or apparent authority. View "Bulfin v. Rainwater" on Justia Law

Sylvan Plowright filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County, its police chief, and two of its police officers after one of the officers, Sergio Cordova, fatally shot Plowright’s dog, Niles, during an investigation. The district court dismissed Plowright’s complaint, concluding that Cordova was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right when he shot Niles.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court held that the use of deadly force against a domestic animal constitutes a seizure of its owner’s property subject to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. The court found that under the facts alleged in the complaint, no reasonable officer in Cordova’s position could have believed that Niles posed an imminent danger, and therefore, his decision to shoot Niles falls short of that requirement. The court reversed the dismissal of Plowright’s § 1983 claim against Cordova and remanded for further proceedings. The court also reversed the dismissal of Plowright’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Cordova. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Plowright’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim against a second officer, as well as his claims against the county and its police chief. View "Plowright v. Miami Dade County" on Justia Law

In this case, a police officer, Michael Roane, shot and killed Tina Ray’s dog while attempting to serve an arrest warrant. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Roane and remanded the case for trial. The crux of the case was the dispute over Roane's perception of the threat posed by the dog. Roane asserted that he believed the dog was unrestrained and posed an immediate threat to his safety. However, Ray and other witnesses testified that Roane had stopped his retreat and took a step towards the dog before shooting, suggesting that he knew the dog could no longer reach him and did not pose an imminent threat. The Court of Appeals held that this dispute over material facts was for a jury to resolve, not a court, and could not be decided prior to trial. The court also held that if a jury credits Ray's allegations and draws permissible inferences in her favor, it could infer that Roane's shooting of the dog was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court also rejected Roane's claim to qualified immunity. View "Ray v. Roane" on Justia Law

This case before the Indiana Supreme Court involved the intersection of a successful Section 1983 federal action and Indiana’s public-employee indemnification statute. The plaintiff, Kailee Leonard, hit and killed a dog belonging to a state conservation officer, Scott Johnson. In response, Officer Johnson pursued misdemeanor charges against Leonard for leaving the scene of the accident. Leonard was subsequently charged but never arrested, and the charges were later dropped at Officer Johnson's request. Leonard then filed a federal lawsuit against Officer Johnson, claiming false arrest. The jury found in Leonard's favor, awarding her $10,000 in damages and $52,462 in attorney’s fees and costs. Unable to pay the full amount, Officer Johnson assigned his indemnification rights against the State to Leonard and her attorney. Leonard subsequently sued the State for a declaratory judgment that the State had a duty to indemnify Officer Johnson and pay the judgment. The trial court found in Leonard's favor, but the State appealed, arguing that Officer Johnson's actions constituted a criminal act.The Indiana Supreme Court held that Leonard had shown that Officer Johnson’s conduct was noncriminal, and the State did not rebut that showing. The Court clarified that a party seeking indemnification under the Indiana public-employee indemnification statute must initially show that the loss occurred because of a noncriminal act or omission. The burden then shifts to the State to rebut that showing by producing evidence establishing a prima facie case of criminal conduct. In this case, Leonard met her burden of producing evidence that Officer Johnson’s conduct was noncriminal, and the State failed to establish a prima facie case that he had committed the crime of false informing. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision ordering the State to indemnify Officer Johnson and pay the federal judgment. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit involved Allen Thomas Bloodworth, II, a business owner who operated two towing businesses in Kansas City. Bloodworth alleged that the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners and fourteen officers of the Kansas City Police Department conspired to stop him from running his businesses and shut down his ability to conduct business in Kansas City. He brought 17 state and federal claims, including defamation, tortious interference with contract and business expectancy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention. He also alleged Fourth Amendment violations for an unlawful warrant search and seizure of his residence and business, the shooting of his dog during the search, and the seizure of business records.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the ruling. The appellate court concluded that Bloodworth failed to link the specific conduct of individual defendants to the alleged constitutional violations, and his claims were based on general assertions mostly. It also ruled that Bloodworth failed to establish that the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous to support his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court further found that Bloodworth failed to establish a constitutional violation resulting from the official policy, unlawful practice, custom, or failure to properly train, retain, supervise, or discipline the police officers. Therefore, there was no basis for municipal liability against the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners. View "Bloodworth v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Hopkinses kept cattle on their Marshall County, Tennessee farm. Detective Nichols received a complaint about the treatment of those cattle, drove by, and observed one dead cow and others that did not appear to be in good health. Nichols returned with Tennessee Department of Agriculture Veterinarian Johnson. Wearing his gun and badge, Nichols knocked and. according to Mrs. Hopkins, “demanded that [she] escort them to see the cattle,” refusing to wait until Mr. Hopkins returned or until she fed her children. Johnson completed a Livestock Welfare Examination, as required by law, noting that the cattle were not in reasonable health, that they lacked access to appropriate water, food, or shelter, and that major disease issues were present; she determined that probable cause for animal cruelty existed. Nichols returned to the Hopkins’s farm several times and discovered a sinkhole containing the remains of multiple cattle. Nichols and Sheriff Lamb eventually seized the cattle without a warrant and initiated criminal proceedings. The cattle were sold.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion for qualified immunity in a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Forced compliance with orders is a Fourth Amendment seizure; words that compel compliance with orders to exit a house constitute a seizure. While the open fields doctrine allowed the officers to lawfully search the farm, it did not give them lawful access to seize the cattle; they lacked exigent circumstances when they seized the cattle. View "Hopkins v. Nichols" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment in favor of defendant in an action brought by plaintiff, seeking injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff, who survived years of abuse, obtained Aspen as a service dog to help her cope with her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dissociative identity disorder (DID), anxiety, and depression. Because enrolling in a full training course to provide Aspen with formal certification was not a viable option for plaintiff, she began self-training Aspen to perform specific tasks she thought would ameliorate her disability and decrease her isolation. In the underlying suit, plaintiff challenged Del Amo's practice of denying admission to Aspen as a violation of Title III of the ADA and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.The panel held that the district court erred by effectively imposing a certification requirement for plaintiff's dog to be qualified as a service animal under the ADA. The panel held that the ADA prohibits certification requirements for qualifying service dogs for three reasons: (1) the ADA defines a service dog functionally, without reference to specific training requirements; (2) Department of Justice regulations, rulemaking commentary, and guidance have consistently rejected a formal certification requirement; and (3) allowing a person with a disability to self-train a service animal furthers the stated goals of the ADA, for other training could be prohibitively expensive. The panel remanded for the district court to reconsider whether Aspen was a qualified service dog at the time of trial, and if Aspen is a service dog, whether Del Amo has proved its affirmative defense of fundamental alteration. View "C. L. v. Del Amo Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Jeffrey was at home in York County, Pennsylvania with his daughter, young grandson, and their pet dog, Ace, a seven-year-old Rottweiler/Labrador Retriever mix. Jeffrey opened the door to let Ace outside, unaware that Trooper Corrie and other officers were swarming his property to serve an arrest warrant on an armed robbery suspect believed to be living there. Corrie heard Trooper Drum yell “whoa” several times, prompting Corrie “to turn around.” He saw a large dog coming toward him, “already mid-leap, within an arm’s reach.” Ace “was showing teeth, and growling in an aggressive manner.” Corrie says he “backpedaled to create distance,” and Ace circled around him, “attempt[ing] to attack.” Corrie “believe[s] there was another snarl,” and he fired a shot. Ace “began to come after [him] again.” Corrie fired a second shot and then a third. The dog yelped, ran to Jeffrey, and died within minutes. Trooper Drum stated that Ace had behaved aggressively. The family did not witness the incident.The family sued Corrie, claiming unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Corrie. The use of deadly force against a household pet is reasonable if the pet poses an imminent threat to the officer’s safety, viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable officer. Unrebutted testimony established that Act aggressively charged at Corrie, growled, and showed his teeth, as though about to attack. View "Bletz v. Corrie" on Justia Law