Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In the early morning hours of July 10, 2018, Trooper Kasha Domingue stopped a vehicle. After the driver and another passenger fled, Clifton Scott Dilley exited the vehicle from the driver-side rear seat. The events that followed are disputed, but it is undisputed that Domingue shot Dilley, paralyzing him from the waist down. The incident was partially captured by a nearby security camera, which lacked audio. The footage shows Domingue pulling over the SUV, the driver exiting and interacting with Domingue, and then fleeing. Dilley then exited the vehicle, and Domingue shot him in the back.The Louisiana Department of Public Safety terminated Domingue for her actions, citing her failure to use her body camera and her false statements about the incident. Domingue initially claimed she used a taser and later fabricated a story about her defensive posture during the shooting. The Louisiana State Use of Force Board found that Domingue violated multiple policies and committed criminal negligence. She was charged with aggravated second-degree battery and illegal use of weapons, to which she pleaded guilty in 2022.Dilley sued Domingue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied Domingue's motion for summary judgment, finding several disputes of material fact and denying her qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that officers cannot use deadly force against a fleeing suspect who poses no immediate threat. Given the numerous factual disputes, including Domingue's inconsistent statements and the video evidence, the court found that a jury could reasonably conclude that Domingue violated clearly established law by shooting an unarmed and nonthreatening Dilley in the back without warning. The denial of qualified immunity was affirmed. View "Dilley v. Domingue" on Justia Law

Jaswinder Singh, a native of India, sought asylum in the United States, claiming persecution due to his political activities with the Mann Party, which advocates for a separate Sikh state. Singh testified that he was attacked twice by members of the opposition Indian National Congress Party (INC) in 2017 and faced threats and police inaction. He fled to the U.S. in 2018 and applied for asylum.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Singh's application, citing concerns about the credibility of his testimony due to similarities with other asylum seekers' declarations from India. The IJ also found that Singh could safely relocate within India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the adverse credibility determination and the internal relocation analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA and IJ misapplied Matter of R-K-K-, which allows for adverse credibility determinations based on strikingly similar affidavits in unrelated proceedings. The court held that the agency erred by relying solely on non-unique factual similarities without considering linguistic or grammatical cues that would suggest plagiarism. The court also noted due process concerns, as Singh could not meaningfully address the redacted declarations used against him.Additionally, the court found that the agency's internal relocation analysis was flawed. The government failed to prove that Singh could safely engage in Mann Party activities outside of Punjab. The IJ's conclusions were based on speculation and did not adequately consider the potential for persecution by local authorities or other actors in different regions of India.The Ninth Circuit granted Singh's petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for a renewed credibility determination and a more individualized analysis of the feasibility of internal relocation. View "SINGH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

A 17-year-old, M.L., challenged a civil harassment restraining order issued to protect E.G., a former romantic partner of M.L.’s mother. E.G. sought the order after M.L. posted E.G.’s personal information on social media, alleging E.G. supported M.L.’s mother in abusive conduct against M.L. and her younger brother. The restraining order prohibited M.L. from publishing E.G.’s contact information online and from defaming or harassing her. M.L. contended there was no clear and convincing evidence of harassment and argued that the trial court failed to consider circumstances making future harassment unlikely.The Santa Cruz County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and later a three-year civil harassment restraining order against M.L. The court found that M.L.’s social media posts, which included E.G.’s contact information and accusations of supporting child abuse, constituted harassment. The court concluded that E.G. had met her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence and that the harassment was likely to continue without a restraining order.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found substantial evidence supporting the restraining order, including M.L.’s repeated social media posts and the resulting threats and harassment E.G. received from third parties. The court concluded that M.L.’s conduct was not for a legitimate purpose and was not constitutionally protected. However, the court modified the restraining order to expire on M.L.’s 18th birthday, reasoning that the circumstances leading to the harassment were tied to M.L.’s status as a minor and her parents' custody dispute. The order was affirmed as modified. View "E.G. v. M.L." on Justia Law

Timothy Hall participated in a protest in Detroit, where he was tackled and injured by a City of Detroit officer. Later, another officer ticketed him for disorderly conduct. Hall filed two lawsuits: one against the City of Detroit and another against the officers, claiming retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. The district court consolidated the suits, denied Hall’s request to extend the discovery period, granted summary judgment to the City, but denied the ticketing officer’s claim of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Detroit, dismissing Hall’s claims against the City. However, the court denied the ticketing officer’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, allowing Hall’s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed. Hall appealed the denial of his motion to extend the discovery period and the summary judgment in favor of the City, while the ticketing officer appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Hall’s motion to extend the discovery period and the grant of summary judgment to the City. However, the appellate court reversed the district court’s decision denying the ticketing officer’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that issuing a ticket under the circumstances violated Hall’s First Amendment rights. The court emphasized that the officer acted on plausible instructions from a superior and had no reason to doubt the legitimacy of the order. View "Hall v. Navarre" on Justia Law

A former public school principal in Brooklyn, New York, brought a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and its former chancellor, alleging retaliation after she complained about racially segregated sports teams at her school. The principal claimed that the DOE's investigation into her was a retaliatory action for her complaints about race discrimination affecting her students.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the principal's Title VI claim, reasoning that her challenge was related to an employment practice and that the primary objective of the federal funds received by the DOE was not to provide employment. The court also denied her motion for leave to amend her complaint, even after reconsidering its initial decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that the principal's retaliation claim was not an action "with respect to any employment practice" under Title VI because her underlying protected activity was unrelated to the DOE’s employment practices. The court concluded that Title VI does provide a private right of action for retaliation claims when the retaliation is for opposing non-employment-related race discrimination. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the former chancellor but vacated the dismissal of the Title VI claim against the DOE and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bloomberg v. N.Y.C. Department of Education" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a police officer for the Town of Salem, was involved in an off-duty incident over ten years ago where he drove at 62 mph in a 30 mph zone, refused to pull over for another officer, and avoided spike strips before stopping and laughing off the incident as a joke. An internal investigation found he violated the department's code of conduct for "Conduct Unbecoming an Employee." He accepted responsibility, waived hearings, and took a one-day unpaid suspension in a negotiated agreement with the Salem Police Department (SPD).Years later, following an audit, the New Hampshire Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the internal investigation report and added the plaintiff's name to the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES). The plaintiff requested removal, citing a court order that his personnel file did not contain Brady/Giglio material. The DOJ denied the request, and the plaintiff filed a complaint in superior court seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The Superior Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the plaintiff's conduct was "potentially exculpatory evidence" under RSA 105:13-d, and that he had received adequate due process.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and concluded that the plaintiff's conduct was not "potentially exculpatory evidence" as it was not relevant to his general credibility and was stale. The court noted that the conduct was over ten years old, the plaintiff had accepted responsibility, and his criminal charges were nolle prossed and annulled. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the plaintiff's removal from the EES was warranted. View "Doe v. Salem Police Department" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against his granddaughter and sentenced to state prison followed by five years of supervised probation. The probation conditions included GPS monitoring and a requirement to stay away from the victim and her family. After his release, the defendant moved to vacate the GPS condition, arguing it was unconstitutional without an individualized determination of its reasonableness, as required by a recent court decision.The Superior Court judge denied the motion, finding the GPS condition reasonable and added exclusion zones for the cities of Framingham and Marlborough, which were not specified in the original sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing that the GPS condition was unreasonable and that adding exclusion zones violated double jeopardy principles.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the addition of exclusion zones did not violate double jeopardy because the original sentence contemplated such zones. However, the court found that the scope of the exclusion zones, covering entire cities, was overly broad and increased the severity of the defendant's sentence. The court affirmed the GPS condition as reasonable, given the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's moderate risk of reoffense, but remanded for revision of the exclusion zones to be consistent with statutory and probationary goals.The court also directed the probation department to remove GPS monitors from defendants who had not received a reasonableness hearing and to refrain from attaching monitors until such hearings are held, ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements. View "Commonwealth v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In 1990, the petitioner was convicted of murder, largely based on two cross-racial eyewitness identifications. Both witnesses initially identified another person as the shooter but later identified the petitioner, who was the only Black man at the defense table during a probable cause hearing. The petitioner challenged the identification procedures and jury instructions on appeal, but the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld his conviction.The petitioner filed a habeas petition in 2016, claiming that the admission of unduly suggestive and unreliable eyewitness identification evidence violated his due process rights. He also argued that advances in the science of eyewitness identification since his conviction called into question the validity of his conviction. The habeas court dismissed these claims, concluding they were barred by res judicata and that the decisions in State v. Guilbert and State v. Dickson did not apply retroactively. The court also dismissed and denied other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the principles set forth in Dickson, which addressed the suggestiveness of first-time, in-court identifications, must apply retroactively on collateral review. The court reasoned that the rule in Dickson was a result of scientific developments that significantly improve the accuracy of convictions and that the petitioner had raised similar claims in his direct appeal. The court reversed the Appellate Court's decision and remanded the case for a trial on the petitioner's due process and actual innocence claims, directing the lower court to apply the holding of Dickson retroactively. View "Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

Derrick Patterson pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one count of identity theft. Patterson met his victim through Grindr, a dating application, and during their encounter, he took the victim’s phone and used it to withdraw money from the victim’s bank accounts.The United States District Court for the Central District of California sentenced Patterson to 111 months in prison, including a three-level enhancement for hate crime motivation under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1. The district court rejected Patterson’s argument that the enhancement required a finding that he was motivated by hate. Patterson appealed the sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Patterson that the language of the enhancement was ambiguous. The court held that the enhancement requires a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was motivated by hate or animus. The court concluded that the district court erred by imposing the enhancement without such a finding. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated Patterson’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA V. PATTERSON" on Justia Law

Brian Watson was convicted in 2017 by a jury for the felony sale of a controlled drug (fentanyl) resulting in death. The prosecution's evidence included testimony from Dr. Daniel Isenschmid, a forensic toxicologist, who discussed toxicology tests conducted by his colleagues, revealing fentanyl and its metabolites in the victim's blood. Watson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing Dr. Isenschmid to testify about tests he did not perform. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that Dr. Isenschmid's involvement in the case was sufficient to satisfy the Confrontation Clause.Watson then filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, claiming that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated by Dr. Isenschmid's testimony. The warden moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, concluding that the state court's decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the district court's decision. The court found that Watson did not provide clear and convincing evidence to show that the state court's factual findings were incorrect. The court also determined that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The First Circuit noted that Dr. Isenschmid had personally reviewed all relevant documentation, data, and test results, and had issued and signed the toxicology report, making his testimony permissible under the Confrontation Clause. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the warden. View "Watson v. Edmark" on Justia Law