Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., Smith & Wesson Sales Company, and Smith & Wesson Inc. (collectively, “Smith & Wesson”) and the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. The New Jersey Attorney General issued a subpoena to Smith & Wesson under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, seeking documents related to the company's advertising practices. Smith & Wesson filed a federal lawsuit to enjoin enforcement of the subpoena, alleging it violated various constitutional provisions. The New Jersey Attorney General then filed a subpoena enforcement action in state court. The state court rejected Smith & Wesson’s objections and ordered the company to comply with the subpoena.The state court proceedings concluded before the federal case, with the state court ordering Smith & Wesson to comply with the subpoena. The federal court then dismissed Smith & Wesson’s civil rights action on claim preclusion grounds, giving preclusive effect to the state court’s order. The state appellate court later affirmed the state court judgment. Smith & Wesson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court should not have given preclusive effect to the state court order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. The court found that all elements of New Jersey’s claim preclusion test were satisfied. The court also rejected Smith & Wesson’s argument that it had reserved its right to litigate in federal court, finding that such reservation was unavailable in this case. The court emphasized that litigants get one opportunity to make their arguments, not two, and they cannot file a federal lawsuit to hedge against a potentially unfavorable state ruling. View "Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the death of Daryl Clinton, who died in the Oklahoma County Jail four days after being booked. Clinton was arrested for driving under the influence and was evaluated at a hospital before being discharged and sent to jail. Despite reporting several health issues, including an inability to move his arms or upper body, Clinton's complaints were largely dismissed by medical personnel. He was found unresponsive in his cell and later pronounced dead at the hospital. The cause of death was listed as blunt force trauma to the cervical spine.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Equlla M. Brothers, the personal representative of Clinton's estate, filed a lawsuit against Tommie Johnson III, the Oklahoma County Sheriff, alleging that Johnson was deliberately indifferent to Clinton's serious medical needs, violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied Johnson's motion for summary judgment, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Johnson.Upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Brothers argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the verdict, the jury instructions misled the jury on the systemic failure claim, and the district court erred in denying her motion to contact the jury. However, the appellate court found that Brothers had waived her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to raise a Rule 50(a) or 50(b) motion or argue plain error. The court also found that Brothers' objections to the jury instructions were waived as she had not distinctly stated her objections and grounds for them at the district court. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Brothers' motion to contact the jury. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Brothers v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin Stanley, who was employed by Western Michigan University (WMU) for about a month before his employment was terminated. Stanley, who has severe ADHD, claimed that WMU and certain supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He also brought a claim under Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), as well as a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed Stanley’s federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed his state-law claims for failure to comply with the Michigan Court of Claims Act’s notification statute.The district court's dismissal of Stanley's claims was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Stanley’s federal claims and the denial of Stanley’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. However, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded to the district court to dismiss Stanley’s federal and state-law claims without prejudice. The court found that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Stanley’s ADA claims because the defendants were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and Stanley lacked standing to request injunctive relief from the individual defendants. The court also found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide Stanley’s state-law claims because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any federal issues. View "Stanley v. Western Michigan University" on Justia Law

Three Black citizens of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Darryl Carter, Diane Johnson, and Theresa Hawthorne, were struck from jury duty during voir dire in 2015. They alleged that their removal violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, claiming that the Caddo Parish prosecutors peremptorily struck them based on their race. The plaintiffs joined an ongoing litigation challenging the Caddo District Attorney's alleged custom of racially biased peremptory strikes. They sued District Attorney James E. Stewart, in his official capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The district court dismissed all plaintiffs except Carter, Johnson, and Hawthorne. The District Attorney then moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The plaintiffs appealed this decision, leading to a de novo review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs could not establish a predicate constitutional violation, which is necessary for a Monell claim. The prosecutors had provided race-neutral explanations for each plaintiff's dismissal. For Carter, the prosecutor noted his expressed bias against evidence from Shreveport. For Johnson, the prosecutor highlighted her potential bias against the police department due to a family member's felony conviction. For Hawthorne, the prosecutor found her colloquies with defense counsel problematic due to her preconceived notions about firearm possession. The court found these explanations sufficient and not merely pretexts for race-based dismissals. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' statistical evidence did not prove discriminatory motive. Without an underlying Equal Protection claim, the plaintiffs' Monell claim failed. View "Pipkins v. Stewart" on Justia Law

The case involves Cailin Hardell, who sued Adrian Vanzyl, Waleed Mohsen, and Blumberg Capital for sexual assault and battery, sexual harassment, and retaliation, among other claims, related to an incident in Miami, Florida in March 2022. Vanzyl, a non-resident defendant, moved to quash service of summons of the first amended complaint, arguing that he had insufficient contacts with California for the trial court to exercise either specific or general personal jurisdiction over him. The trial court agreed and also denied Hardell’s request to conduct jurisdictional discovery.The trial court's decision was based on its finding that Vanzyl was not domiciled or continuously and systematically present in California in March 2022, and that Vanzyl had insufficient suit-related contacts with California. Hardell appealed this decision, arguing that the trial court erred in its findings and that it should have granted her request for jurisdictional discovery.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Four concluded that the connection between Hardell’s claims against Vanzyl and his contacts with California was too attenuated to support specific jurisdiction. However, it also concluded that the trial court erred in failing to consider whether it could exercise general jurisdiction over Vanzyl notwithstanding its finding that he was not domiciled in California in March 2022, and that it abused its discretion in denying Hardell’s request for discovery. The case was remanded, with Hardell being allowed to conduct limited discovery addressing whether the trial court may exercise general jurisdiction over Vanzyl. View "Hardell v. Vanzyl" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of civil rights organizations, voters, and an election official who sought to challenge recent amendments to Texas's election code, alleging that these amendments violated the United States Constitution and several federal statutes. The defendant was the District Attorney for Harris County, sued in her official capacity. The district court denied the District Attorney's motion to dismiss, holding that she was not immune from the plaintiffs' constitutional claims and that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims against her.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the district court should have dismissed the plaintiffs' constitutional claims as barred by sovereign immunity. The court did not reach the issue of standing. The court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.The court's decision was based on the principle of sovereign immunity, which generally protects state officials from being sued in their official capacities. However, there is an exception to this rule, known as the Ex parte Young exception, which allows federal courts to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional state statutes. The court found that the District Attorney did not have a sufficient connection to the enforcement of the challenged laws to fall within this exception. Therefore, the court concluded that the District Attorney was immune from the plaintiffs' constitutional claims. View "Mi Familia Vota v. Ogg" on Justia Law

Sylvia Gonzalez, a city council member in Castle Hills, Texas, was involved in a campaign to remove the city manager, Ryan Rapelye. She gathered signatures for a petition, which was introduced at a city council meeting. After the meeting, the mayor, Edward Trevino, II, asked Gonzalez for the petition. Gonzalez found the petition in her binder, which she claimed was unintentional. Trevino reported this to the city police, leading to an investigation. A private attorney concluded that Gonzalez likely violated a Texas anti-tampering statute, leading to her arrest. The charges were later dismissed, but Gonzalez claimed this incident led her to step away from politics.Gonzalez filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in Federal District Court against Trevino, the police chief, and the private attorney, alleging that her arrest was in retaliation for her role in the petition and violated her First Amendment rights. The District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that it fell within an exception to the no-probable-cause rule recognized in Nieves. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, stating that Gonzalez's claim could only fall within the Nieves exception if she provided "comparative evidence" of similarly situated individuals who engaged in the same criminal conduct but were not arrested.The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of the Nieves exception. The Court found that the Fifth Circuit's requirement for specific comparator evidence was overly restrictive. The Court clarified that to fall within the Nieves exception, a plaintiff must produce objective evidence to prove that his arrest occurred in circumstances where officers typically exercise their discretion not to make arrests. The Court held that Gonzalez's evidence, showing that no one had ever been arrested for similar conduct, was a permissible type of evidence. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Trevino" on Justia Law

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the city of Sunnyside and several of its officials, alleging that the city's crime-free rental housing program (CFRHP) was being used to evict tenants without due process and that these evictions disproportionately impacted Latinx renters, women-headed households, and families with minor children. The city argued that the Attorney General lacked the authority to bring this suit, as the scope of the Attorney General's authority under RCW 43.10.030(1) limits their ability to act to matters that impact more people than those affected by the CFRHP. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed and remanded the case. The court held that the Attorney General did have the authority to bring the suit, as the case involved matters of public concern in which the state had an interest. The court also found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the city's enforcement of the CFRHP had a disparate impact on protected classes, and whether the individual respondents were entitled to qualified immunity. However, the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the Attorney General's claims under the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act, finding that the respondents were not landlords and therefore the Act did not apply to them. View "State v. City of Sunnyside" on Justia Law

The case involves Sharon Lewis, an African-American woman who worked as an assistant athletic director for Louisiana State University’s (LSU) football team. Lewis alleges that she experienced and witnessed numerous instances of racist and sexist misconduct from former head football coach Les Miles and that she received complaints of sexual harassment from student workers that she oversaw. In 2013, LSU retained Vicki Crochet and Robert Barton, partners of the law firm Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips LLP, to conduct a Title IX investigation of sexual harassment allegations made against Miles. The report and its contents were kept confidential, and allegations brought by the student complainants were privately settled.The district court dismissed Lewis's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) claims against Crochet and Barton because Lewis’s claims were time-barred and she failed to establish proximate causation. On appeal of the dismissal order, a panel of this court affirmed the district court on the grounds that Lewis knew of her injuries from alleged racketeering as early as 2013, and thus the four-year statute of limitations had expired before she filed suit in 2021.The district court ordered Lewis to file a motion to compel addressing the lingering “issues of discoverability and the application of [its Crime-Fraud Exception Order].” The district court denied Crochet and Barton’s motion for a protective order and compelled the depositions of Crochet and Barton and the disclosure of documents drafted during the 2013 investigation. Crochet and Barton timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s Crime-Fraud Exception Order and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court concluded that the district court clearly erred in holding that Lewis established a prima facie case that the Board violated La. R.S. 14:132(B) and that the alleged privileged communications were made in furtherance of the crime and reasonably related to the alleged violation. View "Lewis v. Crochet" on Justia Law

Michael Jones, a pretrial detainee, filed a lawsuit against the City of St. Louis and four city employees, alleging that they held him in custody for eight months after his criminal charges were dismissed and failed to inform him of his right to be released. Jones's lawsuit, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, included claims under both state and federal law. The defendants moved to dismiss all fourteen counts of the lawsuit. The district court dismissed seven counts, leaving no federal due process claims against the individual defendants at issue on appeal. The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss the remaining counts, arguing that Jones failed to allege plausible constitutional violations and that they were entitled to qualified immunity from damage claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo, accepting the factual allegations in Jones's First Amended Complaint as true. The court found that Jones failed to allege specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights by the individual defendants. The court also found that Jones's allegations that the defendants "should have known" that he was incarcerated despite his charges being dismissed failed to state a claim under either the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process Clause.The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity and directed that the remaining counts be dismissed with prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. The court did not rule on the state law claims of false imprisonment, leaving that for the district court to resolve on remand. View "Jones v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law