Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A tenured professor at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Jason Kilborn, included an expurgated racial slur in a law school exam question. This led to an investigation by university officials, who found that Kilborn had created a racially hostile environment and violated the university's nondiscrimination policy. Consequently, Kilborn was suspended from teaching until he completed a diversity training program and was denied a two percent raise. Kilborn sued several university officials, alleging violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Kilborn's federal claims with prejudice, finding that his speech was not constitutionally protected. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Kilborn appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the dismissal of Kilborn's First Amendment retaliation claim, concluding that his speech was constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court's decisions in Connick v. Myers and Pickering v. Board of Education. The court found that Kilborn's speech addressed matters of public concern and that the university's actions could be seen as pretextual. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Kilborn's remaining federal claims, including his compelled speech and procedural due process claims. The court also vacated the dismissal of Kilborn's state law claims for further consideration by the district court. View "Kilborn v. Amiridis" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn, allege that the Leon County School Board and its officials violated their parental due-process rights. The dispute arose when school officials met with the Littlejohns' thirteen-year-old child to discuss the child's gender identity and developed a "Student Support Plan" without involving the parents, contrary to their wishes. The school officials acted in compliance with the Board's guidelines, which did not require parental notification if the child did not request it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Littlejohns' claims. The court found that the release of a new guide in 2022 mooted the claims for injunctive relief based on the superseded 2018 guide. It also determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claims. The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not "shock the conscience" and thus did not violate the Littlejohns' substantive due-process rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the actions of the school officials were executive, not legislative, in nature. Therefore, the appropriate standard was whether the officials' conduct "shocked the conscience." The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not meet this standard as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the officials did not act with intent to injure and sought to help the child, even if their actions were contrary to the parents' wishes. Thus, the dismissal of the Littlejohns' claims was affirmed. View "Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County" on Justia Law

Steven D’Braunstein was involved in a serious single-vehicle accident, resulting in his car being totaled. California Highway Patrol Officer Samantha Diaz-Durazo arrived at the scene and found D’Braunstein disoriented and in physical distress. Despite his evident symptoms, she did not call for medical assistance. Instead, she arrested him for driving under the influence of drugs and took him to jail. A nurse at the jail refused to admit D’Braunstein due to his medical condition, prompting Durazo to finally take him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a stroke. The delay in receiving medical treatment allegedly led to permanent injuries for D’Braunstein.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Durazo, holding that although she violated D’Braunstein’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to provide reasonable medical care, she was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that the constitutional violation was not clearly established, as D’Braunstein’s injury was sustained prior to his arrest and not during the arrest process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that Durazo violated D’Braunstein’s constitutional rights by failing to summon prompt medical care, given the serious nature of the collision and his symptoms. The court further held that Durazo’s failure to provide medical care was a violation of clearly established law, which requires officers to seek medical assistance for an injured detainee or arrestee facing a substantial and obvious risk of serious harm. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "D’Braunstein v. California Highway Patrol" on Justia Law

Two professors of Indian descent and adherents to the Hindu religion challenged California State University's (CSU) anti-discrimination and harassment policy, which included "caste" as a protected class. They argued that this inclusion stigmatized their religion and caused them to self-censor certain religious practices. They filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Due Process Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as equivalent claims under the California Constitution.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the professors' Equal Protection claim and the equivalent state law claim for lack of standing. The court also dismissed the Free Exercise claim for failing to state a claim without deciding on standing. The Due Process and Establishment Clause claims proceeded to a bench trial, where the court ultimately dismissed these claims as well, finding that the professors lacked sufficient injury for a pre-enforcement challenge and that the policy did not express government disapproval of Hinduism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the professors lacked Article III standing for their Due Process claim because they failed to show that they intended to engage in any religious practice that could reasonably constitute caste discrimination or harassment. The court also found that the professors lacked standing for their Free Exercise claim, as they did not demonstrate any injury to their ability to exercise their religion. Finally, the court held that the professors lacked standing for their Establishment Clause claim, as the district court's factual finding that the policy had no hostility toward religion was not clearly erroneous. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendants and remanded for entry of judgment of dismissal without prejudice. View "Kumar v. Koester" on Justia Law

Anna Gristina, the plaintiff-appellant, sought to unseal transcripts related to her 2012 New York State criminal conviction for promoting prostitution. Nearly ten years after her guilty plea, she filed motions before Justice Juan Merchan, requesting the unsealing of several transcripts. After her motion was partially denied and while the decision was under review by higher state courts, Gristina filed a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Justice Merchan and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to unseal three specific transcripts.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Gristina's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the Younger abstention doctrine. The district court concluded that it was required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction because the state court order denying the unsealing of transcripts was a pending matter in New York State court involving a judicial function. Alternatively, the district court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibited it from reviewing the state court order as it was a final state court judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Younger abstention doctrine. The court found that the state court's order denying the unsealing of transcripts, which was still under review by higher state courts at the time Gristina filed her federal suit, was a pending civil proceeding uniquely in furtherance of the state court's ability to perform its judicial functions. Therefore, Younger abstention was required, and the district court's dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Gristina v. Merchan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff K.C. alleged that she was sexually abused while in foster care under the custody of the County of Merced. The abuse occurred in two separate foster homes between 1971 and 1977. K.C. claimed that she reported the abuse to her social worker, but no corrective action was taken, resulting in continued abuse. She filed a complaint citing negligent acts and omissions by the County and its employees, which she argued proximately caused her injuries.The Superior Court of Merced County sustained the County's demurrer without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of K.C.'s complaint with prejudice. The court found that the County and its employees were protected by discretionary immunity under Government Code sections 815.2 and 820.2, which shield public employees and entities from liability for discretionary acts.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that the social workers' decisions regarding the investigation of child abuse and the continuation of foster home placements were discretionary acts protected by immunity. The court emphasized that these decisions involved the exercise of judgment and policy considerations, which are shielded from liability to ensure that public employees can perform their duties without fear of civil suits. Consequently, the County was also immune from liability under the derivative immunity provided by Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (b). View "K.C. v. County of Merced" on Justia Law

Brian Farabee, who suffers from borderline personality disorder, has spent his adult life in hospitals or prison for crimes committed while hospitalized. He filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Robert Gardella, Dr. Christy McFarland, and Daniel Herr, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Farabee claimed that the defendants denied him clinically recommended treatment, unnecessarily restrained and isolated him, forcibly medicated him, and discriminated against him.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants without allowing Farabee to conduct discovery or ensuring he was informed of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56’s requirements. The court concluded that there was no material dispute of fact and that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment before allowing Farabee to conduct discovery. The appellate court emphasized that summary judgment should only be granted after adequate time for discovery and that the district court should have provided Farabee, a pro se litigant, with an opportunity to gather evidence. The Fourth Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s summary judgment decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court also recommended that the district court appoint counsel to assist Farabee in litigating the case due to its complexity and Farabee’s limited ability to conduct discovery on his own. View "Farabee v. Gardella" on Justia Law

Tracy Langiano alleged that he was shot and injured by Officer Landon Rollins in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the City of Fort Worth’s policies contributed to this violation. Langiano was accused of sexually abusing his step-granddaughters and left his home after writing a suicide note. He checked into a motel with a loaded handgun, intending to kill himself. His son informed the police about the suicide note and the handgun. Police located Langiano at the motel, and Officer Rollins, without knocking, entered the room. Rollins claimed Langiano pointed a gun at him, prompting Rollins to shoot Langiano multiple times. Langiano disputed pointing the gun at Rollins but admitted holding it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied Langiano’s motion to stay the civil suit while criminal charges were pending. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Rollins and the City of Fort Worth, dismissing Langiano’s civil suit. Langiano appealed the decision.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 denying the stay, as Langiano did not demonstrate substantial and irreparable prejudice. The court also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Officer Rollins, finding that Rollins’ use of force was reasonable given the circumstances and that Langiano’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. Additionally, the court held that the warrantless entry into the motel room was justified due to the exigent circumstances of Langiano being armed and suicidal. The court also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the City, as there was no constitutional violation to support a Monell claim. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Langiano v. City of Fort Worth" on Justia Law

Sergeant Dan Ponder of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department responded to a call about someone destroying property with a bat. Upon arrival, he encountered Clemente Najera-Aguirre, who matched the suspect's description. Ponder commanded Najera to drop the bat, but Najera did not comply and approached Ponder. Ponder pepper-sprayed Najera twice, but it was ineffective. Ponder then fired six shots, with the final two bullets, which were fatal, striking Najera in the back as he turned away.The plaintiffs, Najera’s children, sued Ponder and Riverside County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Ponder’s motion for summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision on interlocutory appeal. After a five-day trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $10 million in damages. Ponder’s post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, including a claim for qualified immunity, was denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The court held that Ponder did not waive his qualified immunity defense and that the jury’s verdict established that Ponder violated Najera’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that Ponder’s use of deadly force was not justified as Najera posed no immediate threat to Ponder or others, and the law clearly established that such force was unlawful. The court emphasized that Ponder’s actions, including shooting Najera in the back, did not entitle him to qualified immunity. View "ESTATE OF AGUIRRE V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Clifford Osborne and Deborah Olsen sued their former landlord, Kevin Belton, for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Louisiana Equal Housing Opportunity Act (LEHOA). The dispute arose when Belton, who initially allowed the plaintiffs to keep a dog temporarily, later prohibited the dog and threatened eviction. Despite Osborne providing a letter from his physician stating the need for a service dog due to mental health issues, Belton refused to accept it and proceeded with eviction, which was granted by a Louisiana justice of the peace court.In early 2020, Osborne and Olsen filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. They moved for summary judgment, which Belton did not oppose, leading the district court to grant the motion in August 2022. Belton subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the judgment nearly a year later, which the district court denied. He then filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to review only the order denying Belton’s Rule 60(b) motion, as the notice of appeal was timely for this order but not for the underlying summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion, as Belton failed to establish grounds for relief such as excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or a void judgment. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Belton’s Rule 60(b) motion. View "Osborne v. Belton" on Justia Law