Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, who are probationers, sued several Pennsylvania judges, probation officers, and the county warden, alleging they were detained without a finding that such detention was necessary to prevent flight or further crimes. They claimed their due process rights were violated as they were held for months without adequate preliminary hearings or credible probable-cause findings.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims. The court held that the plaintiffs' novel claim for a new procedural right conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the county's adherence to existing constitutional rules in initial hearings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that probationers do not have a due process right to a finding of necessity before being detained between preliminary and revocation hearings. The Supreme Court's decisions in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli established that a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing is sufficient to warrant continued detention for a reasonable time until the revocation hearing.However, the Third Circuit found material factual disputes regarding whether the county followed due process rules, particularly concerning the adequacy of notice given to probationers before preliminary hearings. The court reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that the county did not follow established due process procedures. View "Horton v. Rangos" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Percy Brown, alleged that he was framed by University of Louisville Police Officer Jeffrey Jewell and several Louisville Metro Police Department officers for various crimes, including kidnapping, murder, rape, sodomy, and wanton endangerment, after he refused to cooperate in a check-forging investigation. Over more than ten years, the Commonwealth of Kentucky brought and dismissed numerous charges against Brown, resulting in his spending over seven years in prison. After the final indictment was dismissed, Brown filed a lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed Brown's malicious-prosecution claim related to the murder charge as barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that the claim accrued when the murder charge was dismissed on February 24, 2015, and thus was time-barred. The court also granted Jewell’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding Brown’s fabrication-of-evidence claim, finding it insufficiently pleaded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the malicious-prosecution claim, agreeing that it was time-barred. The court held that the murder charge was separable from the other charges against Brown, which were dismissed later, and thus the statute of limitations for the malicious-prosecution claim related to the murder charge began to run when that charge was dismissed. The court also found that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply, as the last alleged unlawful act occurred more than a year before Brown filed his lawsuit. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "Brown v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government" on Justia Law

Kenya Watkins, a Black woman, was employed by Genesh, Inc., d/b/a Burger King, from August 2014 to August 2015. She alleged that her manager verbally, physically, and sexually harassed her, including forcing her into a freezer, groping her, simulating sex with her, and stating she would not be promoted unless she had sex with him. Watkins filed an employment discrimination charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the EEOC in early 2016. In December 2018, she alleged that Genesh admonished her then-employer, Church’s Chicken, for hiring her, leading to a second EEOC charge in 2019.In August 2019, Watkins sued Genesh in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination. The district court dismissed her complaint, finding her allegations did not plausibly support racial harassment. The court noted that Watkins had pending EEOC charges and could file her Title VII claims once the EEOC proceedings concluded. In July 2021, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2019 charge, which Watkins did not pursue. In April 2022, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2016 charge, leading Watkins to file a second lawsuit in July 2022, raising claims under Title VII and other statutes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Watkins’s 2022 complaint as untimely. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on claim preclusion grounds. The court held that Watkins’s Title VII claims were precluded by the final judgment in her 2019 lawsuit, as both suits arose from the same employment relationship. The court reaffirmed that the absence of a right-to-sue letter did not deprive Watkins of a full and fair opportunity to litigate her Title VII claims in the initial suit. View "Watkins v. Genesh" on Justia Law

Mark Eugene Ricks, a Texas state prisoner, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against employees of the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Ricks claimed that he was denied treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) based on nonmedical reasons and that the TDCJ HCV Policy was the driving force behind this unconstitutional denial of treatment. He sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Ricks's complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that his allegations did not support a claim for deliberate indifference. The district court also denied Ricks's motion for appointment of counsel. Ricks filed a timely appeal, and the district court denied him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found that the district court erred in dismissing Ricks's complaint without allowing him an opportunity to amend his pleadings. The appellate court held that Ricks's allegations, when liberally construed, could potentially raise a viable claim of deliberate indifference. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion in denying Ricks's motion for appointment of counsel without considering the relevant factors set out in Ulmer v. Chancellor.The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's orders granting the motion to dismiss and denying the appointment of counsel. The case was remanded with instructions for the district court to allow Ricks to amend his pleadings and to appoint counsel to represent him. View "Ricks v. Khan" on Justia Law

In May 2023, Officers Jacob Ondich and Mathew Lougee of the Casper Police Department arrested Daniel Charles Hemmer at his home and transported him to the Natrona County Detention Center (NCDC). Hemmer was charged with felony theft and entered a no-contest plea in December 2023. Subsequently, Hemmer filed a civil suit against the officers, the Casper Police Department, and NCDC, alleging unlawful entry, arrest without probable cause or a warrant, and a strip search at NCDC. He claimed the officers' actions constituted kidnapping and sought $12 million in damages.The Natrona County District Court dismissed Hemmer's complaint. The court found that Hemmer did not allege facts showing NCDC's involvement in his arrest or provide legal authority for his claims against the detention center. The court also dismissed the claims against the Casper Police Department due to a lack of specific allegations. The kidnapping claim against the officers was dismissed because Hemmer did not support it with legal authority. Additionally, the court concluded that Hemmer failed to submit a timely notice of claim under the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court noted that Hemmer's pro se brief did not comply with appellate rules, lacked a statement of issues, and failed to present cogent arguments supported by legal authority. The court emphasized that while pro se litigants are given some leniency, they must still reasonably comply with procedural rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Hemmer's complaint. View "Hemmer v. City of Casper Police Department" on Justia Law

Patrick Harmon was stopped by Salt Lake City police officer Kris Smith for a traffic violation while riding a bicycle. Harmon provided a false name, but Officer Smith identified him and discovered an active felony warrant. When Officer Smith attempted to arrest Harmon, he fled. Officers Clinton Fox and Scott Robinson joined the chase. The officers reported seeing Harmon reach towards his waist or pocket and heard him mention cutting or stabbing. Officer Fox claimed he saw Harmon holding a knife and shot him three times from five to seven feet away. Officer Smith, who was about fifteen feet away, fired his taser. Harmon died from the gunshots, and a knife was found near his right arm.Harmon's estate and his children sued Officer Fox and Salt Lake City for excessive force. The United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the case, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to Officer Fox and Salt Lake City, concluding that any factfinder would determine Harmon was holding a knife and that the shooting was reasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether Harmon brandished a knife or threatened the officers. The court noted that the video evidence did not clearly show a knife, and Officer Smith testified he did not see a knife. The court concluded that a factfinder could reasonably find that Harmon did not pose an imminent threat, making the use of deadly force unreasonable. The court held that Officer Fox was not entitled to qualified immunity and reversed the summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Harmon v. Salt Lake City" on Justia Law

Samuel Shanks and Taylor Lambert, former employees of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, filed pro se lawsuits against the Union alleging discrimination. Shanks, who worked in accounting for over twenty years, claimed discrimination based on disability, race, color, and sexual orientation, as well as a hostile work environment and retaliation. Lambert, his niece, alleged wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination based on race, religion, and gender. Both claimed violations of various civil rights laws, including the D.C. Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Union removed the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Shanks and Lambert appealed the dismissals. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissals in part but appointed amicus curiae to present arguments in favor of claims that were not suited for summary dismissal.The D.C. Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and concluded that the allegations of racial discrimination related to the Union’s COVID-19 vaccination policy were plausible. The court found that the Union’s two-stage roll-out of the policy disproportionately affected Black employees, who were given less time and fewer resources to comply with the vaccination mandate. The court held that the disparate impact and discriminatory treatment claims based on race were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss. The court affirmed the dismissal of other claims, including those based on sexual orientation, gender, and religion, as well as Shanks’ hostile work environment claim. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the racial discrimination claims. View "Shanks v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers" on Justia Law

Justin Longworth, a federal inmate, alleged that he faced repeated sexual harassment and abuse by Sherry M. Beck, a correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina. Longworth claimed Beck engaged in daily aggressive sexual harassment and abuse, including forced oral sex, fondling, and groping. He did not immediately report Beck's conduct due to fear of retaliation. Other officials at the institution initially did nothing to stop or report Beck's abuse. Eventually, Beck was reported, fired, and Longworth was transferred to another facility, but Beck continued to harass him through letters.Longworth filed two separate lawsuits in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The first lawsuit was a Bivens action against the officials directly involved, alleging violations of his civil rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The district court dismissed the Bivens claims, finding that they presented new contexts and that special factors counseled hesitation in extending Bivens to this context. Longworth appealed the dismissal of his Bivens claims. The second lawsuit was an FTCA claim against the United States, alleging negligence by the officials. The district court dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Beck was not acting within the scope of her employment during the alleged misconduct. Longworth did not appeal the FTCA judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court's FTCA judgment precluded Longworth's Bivens appeal. The FTCA judgment bar provides that an FTCA judgment is a complete bar to any action by the claimant against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim. Since a judgment on the FTCA claim had been entered, Longworth could no longer pursue his Bivens action based on the same conduct. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Longworth v. Mansukhani" on Justia Law

Several college volleyball players accused their coach of physical, verbal, psychological, and sexual abuse. The players alleged that the coach engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment and abuse, including inappropriate touching and forcing players to engage in uncomfortable physical interactions. They also claimed that the coach's misconduct was reported to various university administrators and assistant coaches, who either witnessed or were informed of the abuse.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama dismissed the players' Title IX and § 1983 claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that the players had abandoned their breach-of-contract claims and dismissed those with prejudice. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the players failed to state a Title IX claim because only certain university administrators were "appropriate persons" to receive notice of the misconduct, and the players did not provide sufficient actual notice of sexual harassment to those individuals. The court also found that the university did not act with deliberate indifference upon receiving the notice.Regarding the § 1983 claims, the court held that the players did not show that the university employees' conduct violated clearly established substantive-due-process principles. The court concluded that the employees were entitled to qualified immunity because the players did not provide case law with indistinguishable facts, a broad statement of principle, or conduct so egregious that it clearly violated constitutional rights.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing the players' Title IX and § 1983 claims. View "DeMarcus v. University of South Alabama" on Justia Law

Jonathan and Melissa Brizendine applied to become foster parents in January 2022. After completing their application, a DHS employee conducted a home visit and asked various questions, including about their religious affiliation. The Brizendines, who are non-religious, were also asked to provide additional information on Melissa’s PTSD and medical-marijuana use. On May 19, 2022, DHS denied their foster-parent application. The Brizendines filed a complaint on June 8, 2023, alleging that their application was denied due to their atheism and medical-marijuana use, claiming violations of the Arkansas Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted the State appellees' motion to dismiss, concluding that the Brizendines' complaint failed to state a claim under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and that the State appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity. The court found that the Brizendines did not plead sufficient facts to show that the State’s actions were illegal or unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the Brizendines' complaint was speculative and did not meet the fact-pleading requirements necessary to overcome sovereign immunity. The court noted that the complaint lacked specific facts to support the claim that DHS denied the application based on religious preferences and medical-marijuana use. Additionally, the complaint did not establish any involvement of Governor Sanders or the Child Welfare Agency Review Board in the application process. Therefore, the State appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity, and the dismissal was affirmed. View "Brizendine v. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law