Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Julie Nevarez, on behalf of herself and her minor children, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Louisiana State Police Troopers Justin Leonard and Anthony Dorris. The case stems from the fatal shooting of her husband, Miguel Nevarez, by officers from the Houma Police Department and the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office. Following the shooting, the Troopers obtained search warrants for the Nevarez home, the car Mr. Nevarez was in, and Mrs. Nevarez’s cell phone, claiming they were investigating an aggravated assault against a police officer by Mr. Nevarez. Mrs. Nevarez contended that this justification was pretextual and that the affidavits lacked probable cause.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Troopers' third motion to dismiss, ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a claim under Malley v. Briggs, concluding that a reasonable officer would understand there was no probable cause to support the search warrants, given that Mr. Nevarez was deceased and the affidavits did not suggest others were involved or that the crime was ongoing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that there was no clearly established law indicating that probable cause could not support a warrant to search for evidence of a crime that could not be prosecuted because the suspect had died. Consequently, the Troopers were entitled to qualified immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Nevarez v. Dorris" on Justia Law

K.A. and C.P. were married and had three daughters. Their marriage ended in divorce, and the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services (ACDHS) initiated actions against K.A. regarding her relationships with her children, leading to the termination of her parental rights and several contempt judgments. K.A. attempted to appeal the termination, but the Colorado Court of Appeals denied it as untimely, and the Colorado Supreme Court declined review. She also sought to appeal a contempt sentence, but it was again deemed untimely.K.A. filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Michelle Barnes, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Human Services (CDHS), in her official capacity; ACDHS; and Michelle Dossey, Manager of the ACDHS Division of Child and Adult Protective Services, in her official capacity. The Arapahoe County Board of Commissioners was initially named but later dismissed by K.A. The district court dismissed K.A.'s claims and denied her motion to amend her complaint. K.A. filed a timely appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear K.A.'s claims due to sovereign immunity, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and lack of standing. The court found that K.A.'s claims for damages were barred by sovereign immunity, and her requests to reverse the termination of her parental rights and order a new hearing were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Additionally, her requests for declaratory relief were either barred by sovereign immunity or lacked standing. The court also upheld the district court's denial of K.A.'s motion to amend her complaint, as she failed to explain how the amendments would cure the jurisdictional defects. View "K.A. v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Samuel Shanks and Taylor Lambert, former employees of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, filed pro se lawsuits against the Union alleging discrimination. Shanks, who worked in accounting for over twenty years, claimed discrimination based on disability, race, color, and sexual orientation, as well as a hostile work environment and retaliation. Lambert, his niece, alleged wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination based on race, religion, and gender. Both claimed violations of various civil rights laws, including the D.C. Human Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Union removed the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Shanks and Lambert appealed the dismissals. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissals in part but appointed amicus curiae to present arguments in favor of claims that were not suited for summary dismissal.The D.C. Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and concluded that the allegations of racial discrimination related to the Union’s COVID-19 vaccination policy were plausible. The court found that the Union’s two-stage roll-out of the policy disproportionately affected Black employees, who were given less time and fewer resources to comply with the vaccination mandate. The court held that the disparate impact and discriminatory treatment claims based on race were sufficiently pled to survive a motion to dismiss. The court affirmed the dismissal of other claims, including those based on sexual orientation, gender, and religion, as well as Shanks’ hostile work environment claim. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the racial discrimination claims. View "Shanks v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers" on Justia Law

Tayvin Galanakis sued Officers Nathan Winters and Christopher Wing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Iowa law, alleging they arrested him without probable cause. He also brought federal and state claims against the City of Newton, Iowa. The district court denied summary judgment in part, determining that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity or state statutory immunity, and the City was subject to vicarious liability on a surviving state-law claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied summary judgment with respect to the § 1983 and false arrest claims against Winters and Wing, as well as the respondeat superior claim against the City predicated on Galanakis’s false arrest claim. The defendants appealed, arguing that qualified immunity and state statutory immunity protected the officers—and, as to the false arrest claim, the City—from suit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Galanakis’s Fourth Amendment claim, concluding that no objectively reasonable officer could have concluded that there was a substantial chance Galanakis had driven while under the influence of marijuana. The court found that Galanakis evinced almost no indicia of intoxication and that his behavior during the stop did not suggest impairment. The court also dismissed the interlocutory appeal as to the state-law claims, noting that without clarification that resolution of the qualified immunity claim necessarily resolves the pendent claims, it declined to exercise jurisdiction. View "Galanakis v. City of Newton, Iowa" on Justia Law

On Thanksgiving night in 2018, Officer David Alexander, a policeman with the City of Hoover, was on foot patrol at the Galleria Mall in Birmingham, Alabama. During a suspected active shooting situation, Officer Alexander saw Emantic "E.J." Fitzgerald Bradford moving towards two men with a gun in his hand. Without issuing a verbal warning, Officer Alexander shot and killed Mr. Bradford, who was legally authorized to carry his gun and was attempting to provide assistance.April Pipkins, Mr. Bradford's mother and representative of his estate, filed a lawsuit against Officer Alexander, the City of Hoover, and other defendants, asserting Fourth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims for negligence and wantonness. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama dismissed the state law claims and granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims, ruling that Officer Alexander's use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that a verbal warning was not feasible under the circumstances.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The court held that Officer Alexander acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment given the circumstances, which included a crowded mall, the sound of gunshots, and Mr. Bradford running with a gun towards two men. The court also found that a verbal warning was not feasible due to the immediate threat perceived by Officer Alexander. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the state law claims, concluding that the Mall defendants did not owe a duty to protect Mr. Bradford from the criminal acts of a third party and that the complaint did not plausibly allege foreseeability or incompetency in hiring, training, and supervising Officer Alexander. View "Pipkins v. City of Hoover, Alabama" on Justia Law

Alejandro Estevis was involved in a high-speed chase with the Laredo Police Department (LPD) that lasted two hours and reached speeds over 100 mph. The chase ended when officers forced Estevis's truck off the road. Estevis then rammed a police cruiser and attempted to flee again, prompting two officers to fire nine shots at him, injuring him severely. Estevis sued the officers, claiming they used excessive force.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the officers qualified immunity for the first three shots but denied it for shots four through nine. The court found that while Estevis posed a threat initially, the threat had diminished by the time the later shots were fired. The court reasoned that Estevis had stopped revving his engine and was no longer an immediate threat, making the additional shots potentially excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the officers did not violate clearly established law by firing the additional shots under the circumstances. The court noted that the situation was dangerous and unpredictable, and the officers had reason to believe they were still under threat. The court found that existing precedent did not clearly establish that the officers' actions were unlawful, and thus, they were entitled to qualified immunity for all shots fired. The court rendered judgment granting the officers qualified immunity for shots four through nine. View "Estevis v. Cantu" on Justia Law

Justin Longworth, a federal inmate, alleged that he faced repeated sexual harassment and abuse by Sherry M. Beck, a correctional officer at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina. Longworth claimed Beck engaged in daily aggressive sexual harassment and abuse, including forced oral sex, fondling, and groping. He did not immediately report Beck's conduct due to fear of retaliation. Other officials at the institution initially did nothing to stop or report Beck's abuse. Eventually, Beck was reported, fired, and Longworth was transferred to another facility, but Beck continued to harass him through letters.Longworth filed two separate lawsuits in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The first lawsuit was a Bivens action against the officials directly involved, alleging violations of his civil rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. The district court dismissed the Bivens claims, finding that they presented new contexts and that special factors counseled hesitation in extending Bivens to this context. Longworth appealed the dismissal of his Bivens claims. The second lawsuit was an FTCA claim against the United States, alleging negligence by the officials. The district court dismissed the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Beck was not acting within the scope of her employment during the alleged misconduct. Longworth did not appeal the FTCA judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court's FTCA judgment precluded Longworth's Bivens appeal. The FTCA judgment bar provides that an FTCA judgment is a complete bar to any action by the claimant against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim. Since a judgment on the FTCA claim had been entered, Longworth could no longer pursue his Bivens action based on the same conduct. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. View "Longworth v. Mansukhani" on Justia Law

The defendant, John Volungus, a convicted pedophile, was conditionally released from civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Act allows for the involuntary civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons in federal custody. Volungus, who had been in federal prison for child-sex crimes, was civilly committed in 2012. In 2022, the facility's warden certified that Volungus would not be sexually dangerous if released under a prescribed regimen of care. The district court ordered his conditional release with specific conditions and a prescribed regimen of treatment.The district court's conditional-release order included numerous conditions, some of which Volungus objected to, arguing that the court exceeded its authority by imposing conditions beyond the prescribed treatment regimen and requiring him to pay for certain costs. The district court denied his objections and his motion to dismiss the government's motion to revoke his conditional release for alleged violations of the conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Adam Walsh Act allows judges to impose conditions beyond the prescribed regimen of treatment, provided they are related to the individual's mental illness and the safety of the public. The court also rejected Volungus's argument that the district court lacked authority to require him to pay for certain costs associated with his release conditions. The court affirmed the district court's conditional-release order, finding that the additional conditions and cost requirements were within the court's authority and aligned with the Act's purpose of protecting the public from sexually dangerous individuals. View "US v. Volungus" on Justia Law

A class of incarcerated juvenile offenders in Florida, all sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole under a now-defunct sentencing scheme, sued the Commissioners of the Florida Commission on Offender Review. They claimed that the parole system violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process rights. The plaintiffs argued that the parole system did not provide a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment to the Commissioners, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The court found that Florida's parole system did not violate the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Florida's parole system does not violate the Eighth Amendment for either homicide or non-homicide juvenile offenders. For homicide offenders, the system is not a sham and provides a genuine possibility of parole, satisfying the requirements set forth in Miller v. Alabama. For non-homicide offenders, the system offers a meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as required by Graham v. Florida.Regarding the due process claim, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole under either state law or the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, their procedural due process claim failed. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Commissioners. View "Howard v. Coonrod" on Justia Law

Neysha Cruz, on behalf of her son O.F., filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Cruz rejected the DOE's education plan for O.F., who has multiple disabilities, and sought reimbursement for his private school tuition. Cruz argued that the DOE's placement of O.F. in a twelve-student classroom violated a New York regulation requiring students with highly intensive management needs to be placed in classes of six or fewer students. The DOE acknowledged the regulation but argued that another regulation allowing a maximum of twelve students for those with severe multiple disabilities also applied, giving them discretion in class size placement.An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) initially found that the DOE offered O.F. a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) but that the recommended school could not implement the IEP due to scheduling issues. The IHO ordered partial reimbursement for private tuition. The State Review Officer (SRO) reversed the IHO's finding on the school's ability to implement the IEP and concluded that the DOE provided a FAPE, thus denying reimbursement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the SRO's decision, agreeing that the DOE could choose between the two class size regulations. Cruz appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The Second Circuit found that the case hinged on interpreting New York's education regulations and certified the question to the New York Court of Appeals. The court sought clarification on whether the DOE must satisfy both class size regulations or if it can choose between them when both apply to a student. The Second Circuit retained jurisdiction pending the state court's response. View "Cruz v. Banks" on Justia Law