Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

Mark Blackwell criticized the city manager of Wayne, Michigan, leading the manager to complain to the police. Two officers convinced a prosecutor to charge Blackwell with stalking, but a judge acquitted him. Blackwell then sued the manager and officers, alleging they violated his First Amendment rights by inducing the prosecution in retaliation for his political speech. The district court found that Blackwell's complaint had enough facts to rebut the city officials' qualified-immunity defense at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the city officials' motion to dismiss, leading them to appeal. The district court refused to consider exhibits attached to the motion to dismiss and held that the complaint stated a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim. The court also found that qualified immunity would not protect the officials if Blackwell could prove his allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's decision to exclude the outside-the-complaint exhibits and found that Blackwell's complaint plausibly alleged a lack of probable cause for the stalking charge. The court held that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a First Amendment violation and that the law clearly established this violation. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, allowing Blackwell's claims to proceed. View "Blackwell v. Nocerini" on Justia Law

Tad Mayfield, a nonpartisan legislative specialist in the assistant chief clerk’s office of the Missouri House of Representatives, was terminated on August 6, 2020, after sending an email on August 3, 2020, to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Missouri Senate advocating for mandatory face masks in the state capitol building due to COVID-19 concerns. Mayfield filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for his email, claiming it violated his First Amendment rights.The case proceeded to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The jury found in favor of Mayfield, awarding him $15,000 in punitive damages and $14,993.93 in actual damages for lost wages. The district court denied the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and awarded Mayfield attorney’s fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Mayfield’s email was protected speech under the First Amendment as it addressed a matter of public concern. The court found that the defendants failed to show that the email had an adverse impact on the efficiency of the House’s operations, which would have necessitated a Pickering balancing test. The court also upheld the jury’s finding that the email was a substantial or motivating factor in Mayfield’s termination and rejected the defendants' claim of qualified immunity, stating that the right to speak on matters of public concern was clearly established.Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the submission of punitive damages to the jury, given the defendants' knowledge that terminating an employee for raising public health concerns could be illegal. The court also upheld the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Mayfield, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Mayfield v. Miller" on Justia Law

Silvia Cianzio, a retired professor from Iowa State University, filed a lawsuit against the university, the Iowa Board of Regents, and the State of Iowa, alleging wage discrimination in violation of Iowa Code section 216.6A. She claimed that male professors in her department were paid significantly more than female professors, including herself. After conducting a survey on departmental salaries, she discovered that her annual pay was substantially less than that of her male counterparts. She reported these findings to university officials, who dismissed her concerns. Cianzio retired in December 2020 and subsequently filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) in August 2021, followed by a lawsuit in January 2022.The Iowa District Court for Polk County partially granted the university's motion to dismiss, ruling that Cianzio could only seek damages for wage discrimination occurring within the two-year statute of limitations for wage claims, as set forth in Iowa Code section 614.1(8). The court rejected the university's argument that damages should be limited to the 300-day period preceding the filing of her ICRC complaint.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Iowa Code section 216.15(9)(a)(9) allows a claimant to recover damages for the entire period of wage discrimination, not limited to the two-year statute of limitations or the 300-day period before filing the ICRC complaint. The court emphasized that the statute's language permits recovery for the entire period of discrimination, as long as the complaint is filed within the statutory time frame. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Cianzio v. Iowa State University" on Justia Law

Attorney Stephen Eberhardt filed a 102-page, 19-count complaint against 11 defendants, including the Village of Tinley Park, its officials, attorneys, and residents, alleging a scheme to prevent him from making public comments at Village board meetings and on Village-related Facebook pages, violating his constitutional rights. He also brought claims against the Village’s outside counsel, Patrick Walsh, under the Illinois Open Meetings Act. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for being too lengthy and jumbled. Eberhardt then filed an amended complaint, which was also dismissed, and the court entered final judgment.Following the judgment, Walsh’s attorney filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Eberhardt’s claims were frivolous and filed in bad faith to harass Walsh. The district court granted the motion, ordering Eberhardt to pay $26,951.22 in attorneys’ fees, finding that his claims were frivolous and brought with inadequate investigation into the relevant law and facts. The court noted Eberhardt’s history of filing numerous lawsuits and motions, which indicated bad faith.Eberhardt appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court’s decision to sanction him and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decisions. The court affirmed the sanctions order, agreeing that Eberhardt’s claims were frivolous and brought in bad faith, and that a hearing was not necessary as the record was adequate to determine the need for sanctions. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to reconsider, finding no manifest errors of law or fact. View "Eberhardt v. Walsh" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by transgender women prisoners in Illinois, who allege that the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) has been deliberately indifferent to their gender dysphoria, a serious medical condition. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to ensure timely evaluations and treatments, including hormone therapy, gender-affirming surgery, and appropriate support for social transitioning.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois initially issued a preliminary injunction on February 7, 2022, which was intended to address the plaintiffs' claims. The court later issued further injunctions to supplement and modify the terms. However, more than a year and a half after the preliminary injunction was issued, the district court retroactively labeled it as a permanent injunction and issued a final judgment consistent with the February 7, 2022 decision. The defendants appealed several injunctions and a finding of civil contempt by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court's attempt to retroactively transform the preliminary injunction into a permanent one was not authorized. The appellate court held that under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the preliminary injunction issued on February 7, 2022, expired 90 days later, on May 8, 2022. Consequently, the appellate court vacated all existing injunctions and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the finding of contempt, as the district court had not yet imposed any sanctions, which are necessary to establish appellate jurisdiction. View "Monroe v. Bowman" on Justia Law

Derrick A. Davis sued the City of Little Rock, the chief of police, and three detectives for Fourth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a no-knock warrant was executed on his residence. The warrant was based on an email about drug activity, a controlled buy using a confidential informant (CI), and Detective Bell's affidavit. The SWAT team executed the warrant, finding marijuana inside Davis's home.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Davis appealed, arguing that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the detectives' responsibility for the SWAT team's actions, the veracity of statements in the warrant affidavit, and the existence of a conspiracy to violate his Fourth Amendment rights. He also challenged the district court's handling of evidence and the imposition of sanctions for his failure to attend a deposition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Detectives Bell and Ison were entitled to qualified immunity because the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the warrant's execution. The court also found no Franks violation, as Davis failed to show that any false statements in the affidavit were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. Additionally, the court ruled that Davis's § 1983 conspiracy claim failed because the underlying Fourth Amendment claims were properly dismissed.The court also determined that the district court did not err in considering Detective Bell's affidavit or in disregarding Davis's expert opinions. Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the sanctions award because the district court had not yet fixed the amount. The judgment was affirmed. View "Davis v. City of Little Rock" on Justia Law

Brandon Williams was involved in a series of interactions with Norfolk, Virginia police officers. Initially, Officer John D. McClanahan falsely charged Williams with misdemeanor trespassing and perjured himself at trial to secure a conviction. Williams appealed and used a recording to expose McClanahan's perjury, leading to the dismissal of the charge by the state appellate court. Two weeks later, Williams was hit by a speeding drunk driver, and responding officers, including McClanahan, allegedly falsified the accident report to deprive Williams of his right to sue the other driver.Williams filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims of retaliation for exercising his First and Sixth Amendment rights, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The district court dismissed Williams' retaliation claim, finding he failed to plead an adverse action, and dismissed his conspiracy claim for lack of a constitutional violation. The court also dismissed Williams' state law IIED claims without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Williams adequately alleged that the officers' intentional misrepresentation on the accident report would likely deter him from recording police activity and defending himself at trial in the future. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of his retaliation claim. The court also vacated the dismissal of his conspiracy claim, finding a plausible constitutional violation, and remanded the claim for reconsideration. Finally, the court vacated the dismissal of Williams' IIED claims and remanded them for further consideration. View "Williams v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Grace Smith, a high school junior, was repeatedly suspended from Laramie High School for refusing to comply with a COVID-19 indoor-mask mandate imposed by the Albany County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees. After her suspensions, she was arrested for trespassing on school grounds. Grace and her parents, Andy and Erin Smith, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming against the Board members, the superintendent, and the principal, alleging violations of Grace’s constitutional rights and state law claims.The district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Grace did not suffer an injury in fact necessary for standing. The court reasoned that her injuries were hypothetical because the mask mandate had expired and she was no longer a student at LHS, and that her injuries were self-inflicted. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Grace had standing to bring her claims because she suffered concrete and particularized injuries from the enforcement of the mask mandate, including suspensions and arrest. The court found that her injuries were directly inflicted by the defendants’ actions and were not self-inflicted. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Smith v. Albany County School District No. 1" on Justia Law

In 2001, Alphonse Fletcher, Jr. acquired property associated with two apartment units in a residential cooperative corporation controlled by The Dakota, Inc. In 2008, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. approved a loan to Fletcher, secured by his rights in the property. Fletcher, Chase, and The Dakota entered into an agreement recognizing The Dakota's priority to proceeds from any sale or subletting of Fletcher's apartments. In 2011, Fletcher sued The Dakota for racial discrimination, and The Dakota counterclaimed for legal fees and costs based on Fletcher's proprietary lease.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to The Dakota in the Fletcher action and awarded attorneys' fees and costs. While this action was pending, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP initiated a CPLR 5225 proceeding against Chase, The Dakota, and Fletcher to seize and sell Fletcher's apartments to satisfy a judgment for unpaid legal fees. The Dakota claimed a superior interest in Fletcher's property based on the fee judgment, while Chase argued that The Dakota's lien was not superior and that the lease provision authorizing attorneys' fees was either inapplicable or unconscionable.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to The Dakota, and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating that Chase's contentions were an impermissible collateral attack on The Dakota's judgment. Chase moved for leave to appeal and to intervene and vacate the judgment in the Fletcher action. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion, but the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals held that Chase, as a nonparty to the original action, was not barred from challenging the fee award in a separate proceeding. The court concluded that Chase was not required to intervene in the Fletcher action to protect its interests and that doing so would violate Chase's due process rights. The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings. View "Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law