Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Mitchell Sanderson filed a lawsuit against North Dakota state senator Janne Myrdal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Myrdal violated his First Amendment rights by blocking him on Facebook. Sanderson argued that Myrdal's Facebook page was a public forum, and he sought damages and injunctive relief. Myrdal responded that her Facebook page was not an official state website and denied Sanderson's entitlement to relief. Sanderson also filed a motion for default judgment, which the district court denied, noting that Myrdal had answered the complaint before the motion was filed.The District Court of Walsh County, Northeast Judicial District, granted summary judgment in favor of Myrdal, concluding that Sanderson's § 1983 claim failed as a matter of law. The court found no genuine issue of material fact and determined that Myrdal's Facebook page was not a public forum and her actions did not constitute state action. The court also denied Sanderson's various motions and requests for hearings, finding some of his motions frivolous and awarding Myrdal attorney’s fees for responding to them.The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Myrdal's blocking of Sanderson on Facebook was not state action because her Facebook page was created and maintained in her private capacity, not as an official state communication. The court also upheld the denial of Sanderson's motion for default judgment, agreeing with the lower court's preference for resolving cases on their merits. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Sanderson's requests for hearings and the award of attorney’s fees to Myrdal for responding to frivolous motions. View "Sanderson v. Myrdal" on Justia Law

Nicole Stone, a person with disabilities who uses a motorized wheelchair, resides in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. In 2020, her mother’s boyfriend, Johnathan Chase, built an outdoor structure to facilitate socially distanced meetings for Stone. A neighbor complained about the structure, leading the town zoning administrator to inform Chase that it violated setback requirements and to advise him to seek a variance. The Development Review Board (DRB) denied the variance request without discussing Stone’s disability-related needs. Stone did not appeal the decision but filed a discrimination complaint with the Vermont Human Rights Commission.The Commission investigated and found reasonable grounds to believe the Town of St. Johnsbury discriminated against Stone based on her disability. The Commission filed a complaint in the Civil Division of the Superior Court, seeking various forms of relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and civil penalties. The Town moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that only the Environmental Division had jurisdiction over such claims. The Civil Division dismissed the complaint, concluding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because ruling on the discrimination claim would constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the final zoning decision.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Civil Division has jurisdiction over all Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act (VFHPAA) claims. The Court held that the finality provisions of 24 V.S.A. § 4472 do not preclude the Commission from seeking remedies for discrimination that do not require reopening the final zoning decision. The Court also determined that the Commission is not an "interested person" under the statute and is therefore not bound by the exclusivity-of-remedy provisions. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Vermont Human Rights Commission v. Town of St. Johnsbury" on Justia Law

MaChelle Joseph, a former head women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech, and Thomas Crowther, a former art professor at Augusta University, filed separate complaints alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX and other laws. Joseph claimed that Georgia Tech provided fewer resources to the women’s basketball team compared to the men’s team and retaliated against her for raising these issues. Crowther alleged that he was retaliated against after being accused of sexual harassment and participating in the investigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Joseph’s Title IX claims, ruling that Title VII precluded them, and granted summary judgment against her remaining claims. For Crowther, the district court denied the motion to dismiss his Title IX claims, allowing them to proceed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court held that Title IX does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment, reversing the district court’s decision to allow Crowther’s Title IX claims and affirming the dismissal of Joseph’s Title IX claims. The court also ruled that Crowther’s retaliation claim under Title IX, based on his participation in the investigation, did not state a valid claim. Additionally, the court found that Joseph’s claims of sex discrimination under Title VII, based on her association with the women’s team, were not viable. Finally, the court affirmed the summary judgment against Joseph’s retaliation claims under Title VII, Title IX, and the Georgia Whistleblower Act, concluding that she failed to show that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. View "Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" on Justia Law

Randy Ethan Halprin, a member of the "Texas Seven," escaped from prison in December 2000 and was involved in the murder of Irving Police Officer Aubrey Hawkins during a robbery. Halprin was charged with capital murder and, in 2003, was convicted and sentenced to death by Judge Vickers Cunningham. Halprin's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his initial habeas application was denied. Subsequent applications were dismissed. In 2019, Halprin filed a new writ application alleging that Judge Cunningham was biased against him because he is Jewish, violating his right to due process and the free exercise of his religion.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed Halprin's claim after the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. The trial court found that Judge Cunningham exhibited actual bias against Halprin due to his Jewish faith and recommended granting Halprin a new trial. The State agreed that the evidence showed Cunningham's bias. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals independently reviewed the record and confirmed that Cunningham's anti-Semitic remarks and behavior demonstrated actual bias.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Halprin had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Judge Cunningham was biased against him at the time of the trial. This bias constituted a structural due process violation, entitling Halprin to a new trial. The court granted Halprin a new trial and dismissed his second claim challenging the constitutionality of the future dangerousness special issue as an abuse of the writ. View "In re Halprin" on Justia Law

In 1986, Carré Sutton, a minor, moved to New York City to work as a model for Elite Models Management. Elite executive Trudi Tapscott sent Sutton to Paris to live with another Elite executive, Gérald Marie, who allegedly raped her. Sutton's claims, which would typically be time-barred, were revived under New York’s Child Victims Act (CVA), which temporarily revived claims based on the sexual abuse of minors.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Sutton’s claims, concluding that the CVA did not apply because the abuse occurred outside New York. Additionally, the court dismissed the claims against Marie for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that Sutton had not established the court's jurisdiction over Marie, who resides in Spain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the CVA, noting that subsequent state-court decisions clarified that the CVA revives claims arising from out-of-state abuse if the victim was a New York resident at the time. The appellate court also determined that Sutton plausibly alleged she was a New York resident when the abuse occurred. Furthermore, the court held that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the claims against Marie for lack of personal jurisdiction without providing Sutton an opportunity to establish jurisdiction.The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing Sutton’s claims as time-barred, vacated the judgment regarding personal jurisdiction over Marie, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sutton v. Tapscott" on Justia Law

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

In 2016, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Hinds County, Mississippi, under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), alleging unconstitutional conditions in the County’s detention facilities, particularly the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). The DOJ and the County entered into a consent decree to improve conditions, but disputes over compliance led to the DOJ alleging the County's non-compliance and seeking contempt sanctions. The district court found the County in contempt twice and, after a hearing, issued a new, shorter injunction focused on RDC and appointed a receiver to oversee compliance.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi found ongoing constitutional violations at RDC, including inmate violence, inadequate staffing, misuse of force, poor incident reporting, and over-detention. The court declined to terminate the consent decree, instead issuing a new injunction and appointing a receiver to manage RDC. The County appealed the new injunction and the receivership.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision to retain most of the injunction’s provisions, finding that the conditions at RDC constituted ongoing constitutional violations. However, the court found that the district court’s need-narrowness-intrusiveness analysis for the receivership was insufficient and that the receiver’s authority over the budget and financial matters was overly broad. The Fifth Circuit reversed the provisions related to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and remanded the case for further proceedings to adjust the scope of the receivership and remove the PREA-related provisions. The court affirmed the district court’s decision in all other respects. View "United States v. Hinds County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

In 2002, Natale Cosenza was convicted by a Massachusetts state court jury of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and armed burglary. The prosecution's case heavily relied on the victim, Melissa Horgan, identifying Cosenza from a photo array administered by Worcester police. In 2016, state courts granted Cosenza a new trial, and in 2017, they suppressed the photo array evidence, leading the Commonwealth to drop the charges.Cosenza then filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in 2018 against the City of Worcester, alleging that the City had a policy of not properly training its officers on photo arrays and other investigative techniques, which he claimed violated his constitutional rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding no evidence of deliberate indifference to Cosenza's constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that there was no evidence Worcester had a policy of not training its officers on photo arrays. The court noted that officers received training at a police academy and on-the-job training, and that the law at the time did not clearly establish the procedures Cosenza argued were required. The court also found no evidence that the City had a policy of fabricating or suppressing evidence. Consequently, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Worcester. View "Cosenza v. City of Worcester, MA" on Justia Law

A police officer, David Stanley, was suspended and transferred by the Lafayette Police Department (LPD) following an investigation into his Facebook posts. Stanley took sick leave for about a year and appealed his suspension to the Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board. He also filed two petitions in state court seeking to enjoin the suspension and transfer. The state district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO), but the state appellate court dismissed LPD’s appeal of the TRO. Stanley re-filed his petition, but the state district court found he needed to finalize his appeal with the Civil Service Board first. The Civil Service Board later reduced his suspension but upheld his transfer.Stanley then filed a lawsuit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment violations and retaliation. The district court dismissed his claims as time-barred, determining that the one-year prescriptive period began when Stanley was notified of his suspension on June 11, 2021. The court also concluded that Stanley’s state court petitions did not interrupt the prescription period because they did not assert federal claims or seek monetary damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Stanley’s § 1983 claims accrued when he received notice of the adverse actions, not when the administrative appeal concluded. The court also found that Stanley’s state court petitions did not interrupt the prescription period because they did not provide adequate notice of his federal claims or demand monetary damages. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s claims as prescribed. View "Stanley v. Morgan" on Justia Law

A man was unable to purchase a firearm because a background check revealed he was subject to a long-term domestic violence protective order (DVPO). He sued the State, claiming he was no longer subject to a protective order as defined by federal statute and sought a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment to have the Department of Public Safety (DPS) notify a national database that he was no longer subject to a protective order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). He filed a motion for summary judgment, which the State opposed, filing a cross-motion for summary judgment. The superior court granted the State’s cross-motion, and the man appealed.The superior court found that the DVPO had not expired and remained a qualifying order under Section 922(g)(8). It also concluded that the man’s constitutional claims were not ripe because he had not initiated modification or dissolution of the order. The court entered a final judgment in favor of the State.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s decision. The court held that the DVPO remained in effect and was a qualifying order under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The court found that the legislative history supported the interpretation that DVPOs issued under AS 18.66.100(c)(1) are effective until further order of the court. The court also concluded that the man’s remaining claims were not ripe for adjudication because he had not attempted to dissolve or modify the DVPO. View "Eng v. State" on Justia Law