Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2017, a minor admitted to two counts of assault with intent to commit rape and was initially placed in a Level B program. Due to multiple probation violations, the juvenile court later committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) in 2019. After being discharged from DJJ in April 2023, the juvenile court imposed a probation condition requiring the minor to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290.008. The minor appealed, arguing that this requirement violated his equal protection rights because it treated him differently from minors who committed similar offenses after the juvenile justice realignment, which closed DJJ and transferred responsibilities to county facilities.The Superior Court of Sacramento County upheld the probation condition, rejecting the minor's equal protection argument. The court found that the sex offender registration requirement did not involve a loss of liberty and thus did not implicate a fundamental right, applying the rational basis standard of review. The court reasoned that the Legislature could have determined that minors in county facilities have a lower risk of recidivism due to more effective treatment, justifying the differential treatment.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the rational basis standard applied because the sex offender registration requirement did not involve a fundamental right or suspect classification. The court found that a rational basis existed for the differential treatment, as the Legislature could have reasonably concluded that minors already in DJJ custody posed a higher risk of recidivism and required continued registration to protect public safety. Thus, the court found no equal protection violation and affirmed the dispositional order. View "People v. I.B." on Justia Law

In 1997, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement and sentenced to 15 years to life, plus an additional 10 years. In January 2020, he filed a petition under former section 1170.95, which was summarily denied. In January 2023, he filed a motion for relief under section 745 of the California Racial Justice Act (RJA), claiming racial bias in his conviction and sentence. The trial court denied the motion, citing improper service and failure to state a violation of the RJA.The defendant appealed, arguing that he made a prima facie case for a hearing under section 745 and that the denial violated his equal protection rights. The People contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and that the denial was not erroneous. The defendant countered that his motion was authorized under section 745, subdivision (b).The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that the defendant's motion was prematurely filed under the RJA’s phased-in retroactivity provisions. Specifically, the court noted that the defendant's case fell within the last phase of eligibility for relief, commencing January 1, 2026. As a result, the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction to consider the motion, rendering its order void. The appellate court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal. View "People v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Jermaine Randy Howard was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting a man at an unlicensed nightclub in San Jose. Howard claimed he acted in self-defense, but the jury rejected this defense. Before sentencing, Howard filed a motion alleging the prosecutor violated the California Racial Justice Act (RJA) by questioning him about his connection to East Palo Alto, which he argued was racially biased. The trial court denied the motion, finding Howard failed to make a prima facie showing of an RJA violation, and sentenced him to 19 years to life in prison.Howard appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his RJA motion and that the prosecutor's cross-examination and closing arguments violated the RJA and his due process rights. He also contended that the jury instructions misstated the law regarding murder, imperfect self-defense, and heat of passion, cumulatively prejudicing his defense.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the trial court erred in concluding Howard had not made a prima facie showing of an RJA violation regarding the prosecutor's cross-examination about East Palo Alto. The appellate court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on Howard's RJA motion. The court rejected Howard's claims of instructional error, finding the jury instructions correctly stated the law and did not mislead the jury about the prosecution's burden of proof.The appellate court's main holding was that Howard made a prima facie showing of an RJA violation, warranting a hearing on his motion. The court conditionally reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the conviction and sentence otherwise. If the trial court denies relief on remand, the judgment will be reinstated; if relief is granted, further proceedings will follow. View "People v. Howard" on Justia Law

Eddie Sorto was sentenced to over 100 years in prison for crimes committed at age 15, including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, assault, and shooting at an occupied vehicle. The jury found multiple special-circumstance allegations and enhancements true. After serving 15 years, Sorto petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) and thus entitled him to relief under equal protection principles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Sorto’s petition, stating that he was not eligible for relief under section 1170(d) because he had not been sentenced to an explicit LWOP term. The court did not address Sorto’s equal protection argument directly but noted that he was eligible for parole after 25 years under section 3051, which it found sufficient to deny the petition.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that juvenile offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to relief under section 1170(d) based on equal protection guarantees. The court rejected the Attorney General’s argument that the case People v. Heard was wrongly decided and contrary to California Supreme Court precedent. The court also held that parole eligibility under section 3051 does not render offenders ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of Sorto’s petition and remanded the case for the lower court to consider whether Sorto meets the other requirements for relief under section 1170(d). View "People v. Sorto" on Justia Law

Kathleen Saurman, who had mobility impairments, fell on a small stairway at a restaurant while celebrating her 60th birthday. She subsequently died from an infection following surgery for a broken hip. Her husband, Robert, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the restaurant's former owner and later sued the current owner, Peter’s Landing Property Owner LLC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Disabled Persons Act (DPA).The Superior Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of the current owner, finding that Robert lacked standing to bring an ADA claim for injunctive relief and had not provided evidence of any act or omission by the current owner. The court also imposed nearly $100,000 in sanctions against Robert’s attorney for pursuing what it deemed a frivolous lawsuit.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that under California law, a successor in interest has standing to bring an ADA claim for injunctive relief in state court, even if federal standing requirements are not met. The court also found that there was a triable issue of fact regarding the current owner’s compliance with the Unruh Act and the DPA, as the property remained in the same condition as when Kathleen fell. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment on the ADA, Unruh Act, and DPA claims but affirmed the summary judgment on the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. The court also reversed the sanctions against Robert’s attorney and denied the current owner’s motion for sanctions for a frivolous appeal. View "Saurman v. Peter's Landing Property Owner, LLC" on Justia Law

Harry Malbry, who was convicted in 1991 for committing lewd acts on a child, sought to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. His offenses involved daily sexual abuse of a five-year-old girl over three years. After serving a six-year prison term, he was released and required to register annually as a sex offender. In 2022, Malbry petitioned the trial court to end his registration duty, citing his crime-free record since 1991 as evidence that he no longer posed a danger to the community.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Malbry’s petition, emphasizing that community safety would be significantly enhanced by his continued registration. The court highlighted the persistence and severity of his offenses, his lack of insight into his actions, and his exploitation of a trusting child. The court also noted that Malbry had not sought any professional help or therapy to address his behavior.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The appellate court considered several factors, including the nature and facts of the offense, the age of the victim, and Malbry’s lack of participation in a certified sex offender treatment program. The court also noted that legislative changes, such as the enactment of section 288.7, which mandates lifetime registration for similar offenses, underscored the heightened danger posed by Malbry’s conduct. The court concluded that continuing Malbry’s registration as a sex offender significantly enhances community safety, given the severity and persistence of his past offenses and his lack of demonstrated rehabilitation. View "People v. Malbry" on Justia Law

Nancy Wood, an indigent homeless woman, was residing in Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley, near the hospital where she received treatment for cancer and heart disease. The City of Fountain Valley, which had no homeless shelter at the time, sought to prohibit her from living in the park, citing violations of city ordinances. Wood argued necessity as a defense, claiming her health conditions required her to stay near the hospital.The City initially filed a criminal complaint against Wood, where she was represented by appointed counsel. While the criminal case was pending, the City also filed a civil lawsuit for nuisance against her. In the civil case, Wood, representing herself, again argued necessity. The trial court conducted the proceedings remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. Despite Wood's claims that she had not received the City's trial exhibits, the court proceeded, ultimately finding her culpable for public nuisance and issuing an injunction prohibiting her from residing in the park. Shortly after the civil judgment, Wood was acquitted in the criminal case.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by not staying the civil case pending the outcome of the criminal case. The appellate court noted that the simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings placed an unfair burden on Wood, especially given her indigent status and lack of legal representation in the civil case. The court also found that the trial court failed to consider all relevant evidence, including Wood's necessity defense, in issuing the injunction. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to reconsider the propriety of the injunction, taking into account Wood's acquittal in the criminal case and all relevant equitable factors. View "People v. Wood" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Milton Jonas Arias Molina, was charged with special circumstances murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and street terrorism. During the preliminary examination, Molina and his two co-defendants were required to share a single Spanish-language interpreter. Molina sought relief after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss based on the failure to provide him with his own interpreter throughout the preliminary examination.The charges arose from a homicide that occurred in October 2018. The Santa Cruz County District Attorney charged Molina and his two co-defendants with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and street terrorism. The complaint also alleged two special circumstances—that the murder was committed by means of lying in wait and that the murder was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang—along with various other firearm and gang sentencing enhancements.The preliminary examination was conducted in 13 sessions over the course of 15 months. During the first day of the preliminary examination, Molina’s counsel objected that the hearing would be conducted with a single interpreter for all three defendants. The prosecutor also voiced her concerns about the lack of interpreters. The magistrate stated that he intended to proceed with the hearing, with the understanding that if any of the defendants needed to speak with counsel, he would interrupt the proceedings to permit that.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Sixth Appellate District concluded that the failure to provide an individual interpreter for Molina at his preliminary examination reasonably might have affected the outcome. The court issued the writ of mandate instructing the trial court to vacate its order denying Molina’s motion to dismiss and enter a new order granting that motion, without prejudice to the Santa Cruz County District Attorney refiling the charges and conducting a new preliminary examination. View "Molina v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The case involves Erika Paleny, who sued her employer, Fireplace Products U.S., Inc., and her manager, Sabah Salah, alleging harassment, discrimination, and retaliation after she informed them of her plans to undergo oocyte (egg) retrieval procedures for donation and future personal use. Paleny claimed that her manager disapproved of the procedures and subsequently harassed her for needing time off for the procedures, which eventually led to her termination.The Superior Court of Sacramento County granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the egg retrieval and freezing procedures did not qualify as a pregnancy-related medical condition or disability and were therefore not protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Paleny appealed this decision, arguing that the lower court's ruling erroneously interpreted the relevant statutes and denied her protection under the FEHA.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Paleny was not pregnant nor disabled by pregnancy during her employment, and thus could not claim entitlement to the protections afforded under section 12940 et seq. of the FEHA. The court also found that Paleny was not suffering from a medical condition related to pregnancy. The court concluded that the egg retrieval procedure did not constitute a medical condition related to pregnancy under the FEHA, as Paleny was undergoing an elective medical procedure without an underlying medical condition related to pregnancy. Therefore, Paleny did not have a protected characteristic under the FEHA. View "Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves Xingfei Luo, who twice sought a restraining order against Professor Eugene Volokh under the Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. Luo wanted to prevent Volokh from identifying her in his writings. After the trial court dismissed the first petition, Luo moved to "strike" exhibits she filed in support of that failed petition. The trial court denied that motion and granted Volokh’s motion to preclude her from proceeding pseudonymously in that case. Luo appealed these orders. The second case involves Luo’s second petition for a restraining order where the trial court granted Volokh’s anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion and dismissed Luo’s second petition. Luo also appealed from a subsequent order granting Volokh’s motion to preclude Luo from proceeding pseudonymously in her second petition.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County denied Luo's first petition for a restraining order, concluding that the alleged harmful conduct was "likely protected free speech." The court also found that the alleged facts did not comprise acts of violence, threats of violence, or a course of conduct that seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed the petitioner and caused substantial emotional distress. Luo did not appeal from the order discharging that petition. However, Luo filed an "ex parte application for an order to strike and withdraw improperly filed exhibits." The trial court denied Luo’s ex parte motion to “strike” her exhibits because Luo had not completed the proper forms for submitting an ex parte motion. Luo filed a new motion and Volokh again opposed it, and also filed a separate motion to preclude Luo from proceeding pseudonymously in that case. The trial court denied Luo’s motion to strike her exhibits and granted Volokh’s motion to preclude Luo from proceeding pseudonymously.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division One, the court affirmed the order granting Volokh’s anti-SLAPP motion and dismissing Luo’s second petition. The court dismissed Luo’s appeals as to the trial court’s ruling on her motion to strike exhibits in her first petition and the court’s granting of Volokh’s motions in both cases to use her actual name. The court concluded that these rulings are based on nonappealable orders. View "Luo v. Volokh" on Justia Law