Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Lee Marvin Harris, Sr.'s home, discovering a significant amount of cocaine in an old Cadillac parked in the yard. Harris, Sr. was arrested for possession with intent to distribute and spent five months in pretrial detention before charges were dismissed. He then sued the Town of Southern Pines and the officers involved, alleging malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment and fabrication of evidence under the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming officers omitted material evidence from prosecutors and grand juries.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that probable cause existed for Harris, Sr.'s arrest based on the discovery of cocaine on his property and dismissed the fabrication of evidence claim, reasoning that such claims are not viable if the plaintiff was not convicted. Harris, Sr. appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Harris, Sr. was arrested and charged without probable cause. The court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. Additionally, the court determined that a plaintiff who was arrested and detained but not convicted could still state a Fourteenth Amendment fabrication of evidence claim. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, vacated the summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment fabrication of evidence claim, and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the state law malicious prosecution claim, the failure to intervene claim, and the Monell claim against the Town of Southern Pines and the Chief of Police. View "Harris v. Town of Southern Pines" on Justia Law

An inmate in the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that several ADC employees retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The inmate claimed retaliation occurred after he filed a grievance, circulated a memorandum encouraging other inmates to file grievances against a new administrative directive, and threatened a lawsuit. The directive in question imposed a three-page limit on non-privileged correspondence between inmates and non-incarcerated individuals. The inmate was charged with rule violations, placed in isolation, and later moved to administrative segregation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they had valid, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions, as the inmate had violated prison rules. The district court also denied the inmate's request for an extension of time to file his own summary judgment motion, citing a lack of good cause and the age of the case. The inmate appealed both decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the inmate’s circulation of the memorandum was protected conduct under the First Amendment and that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a security concern justifying the disciplinary actions. The court also found that the district court erred in relying on a written charge of a rule violation that was dismissed on procedural grounds and on the inmate’s deposition testimony given years later. However, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of the inmate’s request for an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Lamar v. Payne" on Justia Law

A high school football coach's contract was not renewed by the Valdosta Board of Education in 2020. The vote split along racial lines, with all white members voting to renew and all black members voting against renewal. The coach believed the decision was racially motivated.In 2020, the coach sued the five black board members individually under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, seeking monetary damages. The district court denied the board members' motions to dismiss based on qualified immunity, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding the coach failed to state a claim. The case was remanded for dismissal.In 2021, the coach filed a new lawsuit against the same board members and the Board itself, this time under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new complaint included more detailed allegations but was based on the same core facts. The district court granted summary judgment for the Board, ruling that the new lawsuit was barred by res judicata because the Board was in privity with the individual board members and the two cases involved the same cause of action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Board was in privity with the individual board members because they acted as the Board when they voted not to renew the coach's contract. The court also found that both lawsuits arose from the same nucleus of operative facts, thus meeting the criteria for res judicata. View "Rodemaker v. City of Valdosta Board of Education" on Justia Law

Christopher Drew was arrested after officers responded to a harassment complaint from his neighbor, who reported that Drew had threatened her and her child. When officers arrived at Drew's apartment, they found him in a confrontation with another woman. During the arrest, Officer Hemsted pepper-sprayed Drew without warning after Drew refused to comply with orders and warned the officer not to touch him. Drew later pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment and subsequently sued the officers and the City of Des Moines under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, failure to intervene, and Monell liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Officer Hemsted's use of force was objectively reasonable. The court concluded that the officers did not violate Drew's Fourth Amendment rights and dismissed all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Officer Hemsted was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that using pepper spray in this context violated Drew's constitutional rights. The court noted that Drew was suspected of a serious crime involving threats of violence and was noncompliant during the arrest. The court distinguished this case from others involving less severe crimes and minimal safety threats. Consequently, the court also found that Officer Ulin and the City of Des Moines were not liable, as they were not on fair notice that their actions were unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and granted the motion to supplement the record with bodycam footage. View "Drew v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

David Efron and Madeleine Candelario were involved in a divorce proceeding in Puerto Rico, during which Efron was ordered to pay Candelario $50,000 per month. After the divorce was finalized, Candelario began a relationship with Judge Cordero, and Efron alleges that Candelario, her attorney, and Judges Cordero and Aponte conspired to reinstate the payments through a corrupt scheme. Efron claims this resulted in Candelario receiving approximately $7 million. Efron filed a federal lawsuit against Candelario and her attorney, asserting claims for deprivation of procedural due process, conspiracy to deny civil rights, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Efron’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court found that Efron’s claims were inextricably intertwined with the Puerto Rico court’s judgment and that granting relief would effectively nullify that judgment. The district court also rejected Efron’s argument that his claims fell under a fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Efron’s claims because they essentially sought to challenge the state court’s judgment. The court concluded that Efron’s claims for damages were not independent of the state court’s decision but were directly related to it, as they required the federal court to review and reject the state court’s judgment. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Efron v. Candelario" on Justia Law

In August 2019, Eric Toon led Lieutenant Christopher Zerkle on a high-speed chase before returning to his home, where his girlfriend, Taylor Quinn, was sleeping. Zerkle and other officers, including Sergeants Paxton Lively and Rick Keglor, and Deputies Brandon Kay and Jamie Miller, arrived at Toon’s residence. The officers knocked on the door, which eventually opened outward, leading them to enter the home. Toon then broke a window, jumped out with an AR-15, and was fatally shot by Zerkle and another officer. Quinn, who followed Toon out of the window, was also injured.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia dismissed some claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the officers on the remaining claims. The court found that the officers reasonably believed they had consent to enter the home when the door opened and that Zerkle’s use of deadly force against Toon was justified. The court also concluded that Quinn’s injuries were accidental and not the result of intentional excessive force.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that factual disputes precluded summary judgment on the warrantless entry claims and Quinn’s excessive force, battery, and trespass claims. The court held that the officers could not assume consent to enter the home merely because the door opened. The court also determined that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that Zerkle intentionally shot Quinn. The court affirmed the district court’s decision on the remaining claims, including the excessive force claim related to Toon and the failure to intervene claim against Zerkle. The case was reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Quinn v. Zerkle" on Justia Law

Bilal Hankins, a passenger in a car with two other youths, was driving slowly at night looking for a neighbor’s lost dog. Hankins asked Officer Kevin Wheeler, who was on patrol for a local private security district, for assistance in finding the dog. Later, Officer Wheeler and another officer, Officer Ramon Pierre, stopped the car without reasonable suspicion and approached it with guns drawn. Hankins brought claims under Sections 1983 for unreasonable seizure, excessive force, constitutional conspiracy, supervisory liability, and Monell claims, along with related state-law claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana limited discovery to the issue of qualified immunity. The district court concluded that there was no question of material fact as to whether there was an underlying constitutional violation of either Hankins’ right to be free from an unlawful seizure or his right to be free from excessive, unlawful force. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, as each federal claim relied on an underlying constitutional violation. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that material fact disputes precluded summary judgment on the seizure claim. The court held that the factors relied upon by the district court, such as the car’s registration information, the time of night, and the car driving slowly, did not amount to reasonable suspicion when considered in the totality of the circumstances. The court also noted that Hankins’ testimony that Officer Wheeler said, “you know, three young men, in a nice car, in this neighborhood,” if credited, would undermine the officers’ justification for the stop. The Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on the seizure claim, vacated the summary judgment on the other federal claims, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hankins v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

In January 2019, Detective Lori Russ searched Connie Reguli’s private Facebook records, allegedly due to Russ’s dislike of Reguli’s criticism of the police. Reguli discovered the search a year later while preparing for her criminal trial but did not sue at that time. In July 2022, during her sentencing, Russ seemed to admit that Reguli’s speech motivated the search. Reguli then filed a First Amendment retaliation claim against Russ and her employer in November 2022 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed Reguli’s claim as untimely, reasoning that the claim accrued when Reguli learned of the search in January 2020, not when she learned of Russ’s motivation in July 2022. The court applied Tennessee’s one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 claims, concluding that Reguli’s lawsuit was filed too late.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Reguli’s First Amendment retaliation claim accrued when she discovered the search in January 2020, as she knew of the injury and its cause at that time. The court rejected Reguli’s argument that the claim accrued only when she learned of Russ’s retaliatory motive, stating that the statute of limitations begins when the plaintiff knows or should know of the injury, not necessarily the motive behind it. The court also noted that Reguli did not renew her tolling argument on appeal, thus forfeiting it. View "Reguli v. Russ" on Justia Law

Roland McCarthy, a white man, was hired as Finance Director by the City Commission of Cordele, Georgia, in 2017 and promoted to City Manager in January 2021. During his tenure, Joshua Deriso campaigned for chairman of the City Commission, expressing intentions to replace white employees with African Americans and to have an all-black City Commission. After winning the election, Deriso and other black commissioners voted to fire McCarthy and replace him with a black City Manager, Angela Henderson Redding. McCarthy was warned by Deriso and another commissioner, Royce Reeves, that he would be replaced due to his race and could not return to his former position because he did not "look like" them.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia dismissed McCarthy's complaint, ruling that he failed to state plausible claims of racial discrimination against the City. The court found that McCarthy did not sufficiently allege that the Commission acted with a racially discriminatory motive, as only one voting commissioner was alleged to have racial animus. The court also dismissed claims against Deriso in his official capacity as duplicative of claims against the City and dismissed claims against Deriso in his individual capacity, citing qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's dismissal of McCarthy's claims against the City. The appellate court found that McCarthy plausibly alleged that the Commission discriminated against him because of his race, based on Deriso's and Reeves's statements and the racial composition of the vote. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Deriso in his individual capacity, as he did not have the authority to make the official decision to fire McCarthy. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McCarthy v. City of Cordele Georgia" on Justia Law

Jane Doe, a minor, alleged that the Alpena Public School District and the Alpena Board of Education created a sexually hostile educational environment by failing to adequately respond to repeated unwanted sexual contact by another student, John Roe. Doe claimed this violated the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). The defendants sought summary disposition, arguing that student-on-student harassment is not actionable under the ELCRA and that Doe failed to meet the elements of a hostile-environment claim.The Alpena Circuit Court granted the defendants' motion for summary disposition, agreeing that the ELCRA does not cover student-on-student harassment and that Doe did not establish a genuine issue of material fact. The Michigan Court of Appeals partially reversed, holding that the ELCRA could apply under the in loco parentis doctrine, but affirmed the summary disposition on the grounds that the defendants took appropriate remedial action.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the ELCRA does not provide a vicarious-liability cause of action against educational institutions for student-on-student sexual harassment. The Court found no statutory basis for applying the in loco parentis doctrine to impose vicarious liability on schools under the ELCRA. The Court reversed the part of the Court of Appeals' judgment that relied on vicarious liability and vacated the part affirming summary disposition. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine if the trial court correctly granted summary disposition under a direct liability theory and whether such a claim exists under the ELCRA. View "Doe V Alpena Public School District" on Justia Law