Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A 28-year-old man, Steven Mitchell Qualls, died in police custody from a methamphetamine overdose. Qualls had been taken to a hospital for chest pains and agitation but was arrested for public intoxication after refusing to leave. He was booked into the Jasper City Jail, where his condition worsened. Despite showing signs of severe distress, including vomiting black liquid and screaming in pain, officers did not seek medical help. Qualls died approximately 33 hours after being booked.Qualls’s mother, Frances E. Sims, sued the City of Jasper and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to Qualls’s serious medical needs in violation of the 14th Amendment. The district court dismissed claims against one officer and the city but denied summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds for the remaining officers. Sims then moved to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases, arguing that evidence of Qualls’s past behavior would unfairly prejudice the jury. The district court denied the motion, and the jury found for the defendants. Sims’s motion for a new trial was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial. The court reasoned that the evidence of Qualls’s past behavior was relevant to the officers’ defense, as it could show they did not recognize the severity of his condition. The court also found that standard trial practices, such as objections and limiting instructions, could mitigate any potential prejudice. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment and the denial of a new trial. View "Sims v. City of Jasper" on Justia Law

Fernando Nunez, Jr., an inmate in Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Nunez, a devout Muslim, claimed that the DOC violated his religious rights by denying him accommodations to consummate his marriage and have ongoing conjugal visits, engage in congregate prayer with visitors, and undergo a religious circumcision.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the DOC. The court concluded that the DOC had compelling interests in denying Nunez's requests and that there were no less restrictive alternatives available. The court relied on affidavits from DOC officials, which cited concerns about safety, security, health, and resource constraints. The court found that Nunez failed to disprove that the DOC's policies were the least restrictive means of furthering these interests.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and found that the District Court did not properly hold the DOC to its burden under RLUIPA. The Third Circuit concluded that the DOC failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims of compelling interests and did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives. The court emphasized that RLUIPA requires a rigorous and fact-intensive inquiry and that the DOC's "mere say-so" was insufficient to meet this standard. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the DOC to supplement the record to meet its burden under RLUIPA. View "Nunez v. Wolf" on Justia Law

The case involves Kimberly Marroquin, who sued Los Angeles Police Officer DiMaggio Rico and the City of Los Angeles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and negligence after being injured by a less-lethal projectile during a crowd control situation following a Lakers game. Marroquin claimed that the injury caused her substantial physical and emotional harm. The jury found in favor of Marroquin on her excessive force and negligence claims but awarded inconsistent damages: $1.00 against Officer Rico and $1,500,000.00 against the City.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a new trial limited to damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A), citing a miscarriage of justice due to the jury's improper apportionment of damages. The court also denied the defendants' motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), which was based on newly discovered surveillance footage. The court found that the defendants failed to show reasonable diligence in discovering this evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's post-trial orders. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial limited to damages, rejecting the defendants' argument that the liability and damages issues were so interwoven that a damages-only trial violated their Seventh Amendment rights. The court found that the liability issues were distinct and separable from the damages issues and that the jury's confusion was likely due to an improper instruction on the verdict form.The Ninth Circuit also upheld the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b)(2) motion, agreeing that there is no exception to the requirement of reasonable diligence, even if the newly discovered evidence is conclusive. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, maintaining the new trial limited to damages and the denial of relief from judgment based on the newly discovered evidence. View "MARROQUIN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Moses Lugo and Cheryl Seaton, who use motorized wheelchairs, sued the City of Troy, New York, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA). They alleged that the city failed to maintain accessible pedestrian pathways. After discovery, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, while the City of Troy moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the factual allegations insufficient to establish standing, without considering the full summary-judgment record.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the complaint based on the pleadings, concluding that the allegations were too generic to establish standing for city-wide remedies and that the specific obstacles mentioned had been remedied, thus mooting those claims. The court did not evaluate whether the evidence from discovery could establish standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The appellate court found that the district court erred by resolving the standing issue based solely on the pleadings rather than the full summary-judgment record. The appellate court held that the district court should have considered the evidence developed during discovery to determine whether Plaintiffs had standing. Consequently, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to evaluate the standing issue based on the complete evidentiary record and to determine if summary judgment is warranted or if Plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint. View "Lugo v. The City of Troy, New York" on Justia Law

The case involves a long-standing litigation concerning the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office and the conditions at Orleans Parish Prison. Plaintiffs, including detainees and the United States, argued that the jail provided constitutionally inadequate housing and medical care. In 2013, a district court approved a consent decree to address these issues, which included a plan to construct a mental health annex, known as Phase III. Despite years of delays, the district court ordered the construction to proceed. No party appealed these orders at the time.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana oversaw the case initially. In 2016, the parties entered a stipulated order to develop a plan for appropriate housing for prisoners with mental health issues. The Compliance Director later proposed the construction of Phase III, which was agreed upon by the former Sheriff and the City. However, the City later sought to explore alternatives, leading to further court orders in 2019 to proceed with Phase III. The City’s subsequent motion to halt the project was denied, and this decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Anderson v. City of New Orleans.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing the case. The new Sheriff, Susan Hutson, moved to terminate all orders concerning Phase III, arguing that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) prohibits the construction of a new jail facility. The district court denied this motion, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it could review the denial of the motion but not the underlying orders, as the Sheriff’s motion was not a proper procedural mechanism under the PLRA to challenge the 2019 Orders and Stipulated Order. The appeal was dismissed, and the construction of Phase III continues. View "Anderson v. Hutson" on Justia Law

Alexis Guerrero, a Black Dominican-American, sued Ollie’s Bargain Outlet under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination. Guerrero alleged that while shopping for flowerpots at an Ollie’s store in Salisbury, Maryland, an employee named Richard Murray threatened him with a knife and shouted racial slurs, preventing him from purchasing the items. Guerrero claimed that this discriminatory conduct interfered with his right to make and enforce contracts.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Ollie’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that Guerrero failed to sufficiently allege that he was denied the opportunity to contract for goods or services that was otherwise afforded to white customers. Specifically, the court found that Guerrero did not claim that Ollie’s actually prevented him from purchasing a flowerpot and noted that he voluntarily left the store without attempting to make a purchase.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that Guerrero sufficiently alleged a contractual interest by demonstrating his intent to purchase the flowerpots and that Murray’s actions, including wielding a knife and shouting racial slurs, interfered with this interest. The court found that Guerrero’s allegations were enough to show that he was denied the opportunity to contract based on his race. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Guerrero v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet, Inc." on Justia Law

Bobby Stevenson, a prisoner at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, claims he was forced to labor in the prison’s agricultural fields despite severe ankle pain caused by two broken surgical screws. He alleges that two prison physicians, Dr. Randy Lavespere and Dr. Paul M. Tocé, refused to fix the screws or relieve him from field labor. Stevenson asserts that the broken screws caused him tremendous pain and secondary injuries, and that the physicians ignored his complaints and medical recommendations for surgery.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana reviewed the case. The magistrate judge allowed Stevenson to file an amended complaint and recommended denying the defendants' motion to dismiss, which argued for qualified immunity. The district court accepted this recommendation and denied the motion, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that Stevenson sufficiently alleged that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by ignoring his severe medical needs and forcing him to work despite his condition. The court also determined that the defendants had fair warning from existing case law that their actions were unconstitutional. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, rejecting the defendants' claim of qualified immunity. View "Stevenson v. Toce" on Justia Law

In February 2016, two Seattle police officers, Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding, fatally shot Che Andre Taylor during an attempted arrest. Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Council member, publicly referred to the incident as a "blatant murder" and later reiterated that Taylor was "murdered by the police." Following an inquest, prosecutors declined to file charges against the officers due to insufficient evidence of malice. Miller and Spaulding subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and outrage under state law, as well as a federal defamation claim against Sawant.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the federal defamation claim but retained jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court later granted Sawant's motion for summary judgment on the state law claims and awarded her expert witness deposition expenses, including fees for preparation time. Miller and Spaulding appealed the decision, challenging the award of expert witness fees and the admissibility of the expert's opinions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows for the recovery of reasonable expenses for time an expert witness spends preparing for a deposition. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such preparation fees are recoverable under Rule 26. The court found that the expert witness deposition preparation fees awarded to Sawant were reasonable and did not result in manifest injustice. The Ninth Circuit also noted that objections to the admissibility of the expert's opinions did not negate the obligation to pay a reasonable fee under Rule 26. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and the award of expert witness deposition expenses. View "Miller v. Sawant" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court issued a permanent injunction in 2013, followed by a supplemental injunction appointing an independent monitor to oversee MCSO’s compliance. In 2016, a second supplemental injunction required MCSO to reform its internal misconduct investigation procedures. In 2022, a third supplemental injunction found the Sheriff in contempt for non-compliance and set forth curative measures, including creating a Constitutional Policing Authority (CPA) and assigning its duties to the Monitor.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially issued the permanent injunction and subsequent supplemental injunctions. The court found MCSO in contempt for failing to comply with the injunctions and ordered additional remedial measures. The district court relied on its inherent equitable powers rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 in issuing these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s amended third supplemental permanent injunction. It held that the district court acted within its inherent equitable powers in assigning the CPA’s duties to the Monitor. The court rejected the Sheriff’s contention that this assignment violated Article III of the Constitution and separation of powers principles. It also found that the First Order provided adequate judicial review of the Monitor’s actions and that the Third Order did not contravene Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65’s specificity requirement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court’s actions were appropriate and affirmed the Third Order. View "MELENDRES V. SKINNER" on Justia Law

Joshua Vogt died of a drug overdose while detained in a county jail. His daughter, Molly Vogt, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that three officers deliberately disregarded his medical condition. The magistrate judge recommended summary judgment in favor of the officers, and the district court agreed. Molly Vogt appealed, arguing that a pending adverse-inference instruction against the officers created a material factual dispute regarding their deliberate indifference to Mr. Vogt’s medical condition.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota initially reviewed the case. The magistrate judge found that the county had intentionally destroyed footage from Camera 18, which could have shown Mr. Vogt’s condition. Despite this, the magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for the officers, concluding that even with the adverse inference, the available evidence did not support a finding of deliberate indifference. The district court adopted these recommendations, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that to establish a § 1983 medical indifference claim, the plaintiff must show that officers acted with deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s objectively serious medical needs. The court found that the officers repeatedly checked on Mr. Vogt, questioned him about his condition, and called for emergency medical help when his condition worsened. The court concluded that the adverse inference regarding the missing footage did not create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, granting summary judgment to the officers. View "Vogt v. Crow Wing County" on Justia Law