Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Two students receiving special education services filed a class action lawsuit against the Kanawha County Board of Education, alleging that the Board denied them and other similarly situated students a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The lawsuit also claimed violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court certified a class of all Kanawha County Schools students with disabilities who need behavior supports and have experienced disciplinary removals from any classroom.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, reasoning that the plaintiffs had presented expert evidence of disproportionate rates of suspension for students with disabilities and a detailed qualitative analysis of student records. The court found that these factors revealed a cohesive pattern indicating the absence of an effective system for developing and implementing behavioral supports for students with disabilities. The Board appealed, arguing that the certification of the plaintiff class was inconsistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s certification order. The Fourth Circuit held that the certified class failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality prerequisite. The court found that the plaintiffs did not identify a common contention central to the validity of all class members’ claims. The court noted that the claims were highly diverse and individualized, involving different practices at different stages of the special education process. The absence of a common contention foreclosed class treatment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "G.T. v. The Board of Education of the County of Kanawha" on Justia Law

Brian Houston, representing a putative class, filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and Sheriff Paul Penzone, alleging that the County's practice of posting arrestees' photographs and identifying information on its Mugshot Lookup website violated his substantive and procedural due process rights and his right to a speedy public trial. Houston's mugshot and personal details were posted online for three days following his arrest, even though he was never prosecuted. He claimed this caused him public humiliation, reputational harm, and emotional distress.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed Houston's claims. The court found that the Mugshot Lookup post was not a condition of pretrial detention and that Houston failed to show a cognizable liberty or property interest under state law for his procedural due process claim. The court also dismissed his Sixth Amendment claim, noting that Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of Houston's substantive due process claim, holding that Houston sufficiently alleged that the Mugshot Lookup post caused him actionable harm and that the County's transparency justification did not rationally relate to the punitive nature of the post. The court affirmed the dismissal of Houston's procedural due process claim, as he did not demonstrate a protected liberty or property interest under state law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of his Sixth Amendment claim, as Houston was not prosecuted and thus had no right to a speedy trial.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Houston adequately pleaded a substantive due process claim but failed to state claims for procedural due process and Sixth Amendment violations. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "HOUSTON V. MARICOPA COUNTY" on Justia Law

In the wake of George Floyd's death in May 2020, Los Angeles experienced widespread protests. The plaintiffs, including Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and several individuals, filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and then-LAPD Chief Michel Moore. They alleged that the LAPD used excessive force, arrested protestors without probable cause, and restricted their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit sought to certify four classes: a Direct Force Class, an Arrest Class, an Infraction Class, and an Injunctive Relief Class.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified all four classes. The court found that the plaintiffs had raised common questions about whether LAPD customs or policies caused their injuries. However, the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the damages classes satisfied the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a) or whether common questions predominated over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). The court also failed to address whether the Injunctive Relief Class met the commonality requirement under Rule 23(a).The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification order. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not rigorously analyze whether the plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to meet the class certification requirements. Specifically, the district court did not adequately address the commonality and predominance requirements for the damages classes or identify common questions for the Injunctive Relief Class. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions for the district court to fully address Rule 23’s class certification requirements. View "BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

During a night of civil unrest in Des Moines, Iowa, police and Polk County deputies arrested 14 individuals. The arrestees claimed their Fourth Amendment rights were violated and sued 53 defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court issued a comprehensive opinion with around 800 rulings on various motions for summary judgment and qualified immunity, leading to multiple appeals.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa denied qualified immunity to several officers and granted summary judgment to some plaintiffs. The Des Moines defendants appealed these decisions, arguing they had probable cause to arrest anyone in the vicinity of the protests for misdemeanors such as participation in a riot, unlawful assembly, and failure to disperse. The district court found that the officers lacked probable cause or arguable probable cause for these arrests, as they did not provide specific evidence linking the plaintiffs to violent behavior or failure to disperse.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court's decisions de novo. The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Officers Herman, Holtan, and McCarthy on Klingenberg's unlawful arrest claim, and dismissed Officer Lawler's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also dismissed appeals from Captain Hardy and other officers regarding Lard's and DeBrossard's unlawful arrest claims and Lard's excessive force claim. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Patton group on their unlawful arrest claims and denied qualified immunity to the Des Moines defendants on the plaintiffs' malicious prosecution claims. Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their phone seizure claims against Officer Youngblut and denied him qualified immunity.The court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Deputy Smith on Timberlake's unlawful arrest claim, finding no clearly established duty for Smith to ensure the lawfulness of the arrest before taking custody. Finally, the court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity to Officer Holtan and Deputy Callahan on Dunn's and Fugate's unlawful arrest claims, concluding they had arguable probable cause under Iowa's failure to disperse statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings. View "Dunn v. Does" on Justia Law

Three retired New Hampshire State Police troopers challenged their inclusion on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES), claiming their placement was based on outdated and misinterpreted conduct. Approximately twenty years ago, the troopers inflated traffic stop records in their activity logs to meet mandated quotas. An internal investigation led to their discipline but not termination. Initially placed on the "Laurie List," their names were later removed, only to be reinstated on the EES over a decade later.The Superior Court dismissed the troopers' complaint, finding their conduct potentially exculpatory and their placement on the EES appropriate. The court also ruled that the troopers had received adequate due process. The troopers appealed, arguing that their conduct was not fraudulent and that the age of the conduct diminished its relevance.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case, focusing on whether the troopers' conduct was "potentially exculpatory" under RSA 105:13-d. The court noted that "potentially exculpatory evidence" includes evidence that could be material to guilt or punishment, including impeachment evidence. The court emphasized that factors such as the age and nature of the conduct should be considered in determining its relevance.The court concluded that the limited record did not establish whether the troopers' conduct was potentially exculpatory, as it could have been a result of a mistaken interpretation of reporting requirements rather than dishonesty. Therefore, the court reversed the Superior Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the potential exculpatory nature of the conduct, considering its admissibility and relevance in future criminal cases. View "Doe v. N.H. Attorney Gen." on Justia Law

In 2015, Eddie Williams was prosecuted in Pennsylvania for crimes related to a dispute over illegal drug profits, resulting in one death and one serious injury. Williams, along with Rick Cannon and Akeita Harden, was implicated in the incident. Cannon pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including homicide, and Williams was tried jointly with Harden. During the trial, the judge read Cannon's Criminal Information, which included charges naming Williams as a co-conspirator, to the jury. Williams was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional years.Williams filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition in 2017, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to object to the reading of Cannon's Criminal Information. The PCRA court denied the petition, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further appeal. Williams then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which granted relief, finding a violation of the Confrontation Clause and ineffective assistance of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the reading of Cannon's Criminal Information, which included testimonial statements implicating Williams, violated the Confrontation Clause. The court also found that Williams's counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the reading, which prejudiced Williams's defense. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to grant habeas relief, concluding that the errors had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict. The case was remanded for the District Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. View "Williams v. District Attorney Lebanon County" on Justia Law

In the summer of 2020, Derrick Sanderlin attended a protest in San Jose, California, where he was struck in the groin by a 40mm foam baton round fired by Officer Michael Panighetti. Sanderlin alleged that Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive, violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. Sanderlin claimed he was peacefully protesting and did not hear any warnings before being shot. Panighetti argued that Sanderlin was obstructing officers from targeting other individuals who posed a threat.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Panighetti's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether Panighetti's actions were retaliatory and whether the force used was excessive. The court found that a jury could determine that Sanderlin was engaged in protected First Amendment activity and that Panighetti's actions were motivated by retaliatory animus. Additionally, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that Sanderlin was seized under the Fourth Amendment and that the force used was unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Panighetti. The Ninth Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Sanderlin, genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether Panighetti's use of force was retaliatory and excessive. The court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers may not use their authority to retaliate against individuals for protected speech and that the use of a 40mm foam baton round against a non-threatening individual constituted excessive force. The court also determined that subsequent legal developments did not alter the clearly established law at the time of the incident. View "SANDERLIN V. DWYER" on Justia Law

In 2007, Mohamed Musaid was arrested for the murder of a relative and confessed to the crime. However, his trial was delayed for over eight years due to repeated findings of incompetence to stand trial, attributed to his long history of mental illness. Musaid was found incompetent on ten occasions and competent on five, with his competency dependent on his compliance with antipsychotic medication. Each time he was found competent and transferred to Rikers Island, he would refuse medication and regress to incompetence.The trial court eventually allowed Musaid's trial to proceed nearly ten months after a final finding of competency, without re-evaluating his mental state. During the trial, Musaid exhibited erratic behavior, raising questions about his competency. Despite this, the trial court did not conduct a further inquiry into his mental state. Musaid was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life for second-degree murder and five years for criminal possession of a weapon.Musaid appealed, arguing that the trial court's failure to reassess his competency before trial violated his due process rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, stating there was no indication that Musaid was unable to understand the proceedings or assist in his defense. Musaid then sought habeas corpus relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and found that the trial court's failure to conduct a minimal inquiry into Musaid's competency just before trial was objectively unreasonable, given his history of mental illness and the time elapsed since the last competency evaluation. The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, allowing the state courts to determine whether it is possible to reconstruct Musaid's competency at the time of trial based on evidence proximate to the trial. View "Musaid v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law

Joshua Allen Baldwin was arrested by Officer Daniel Beasley on July 22, 2021, at Lucky Lil’s Casino in Anaconda, Montana, for allegedly violating his pre-release conditions by being in a casino. Beasley confirmed with dispatch that Baldwin was under court conditions prohibiting him from being in such establishments. After Baldwin was arrested, officers observed suspicious items in his car, including a butane refill bottle, burnt pliers, and a Ziploc baggie with a white crystalline substance. A subsequent search of Baldwin’s car, conducted after obtaining a warrant, revealed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.The Third Judicial District Court, Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, denied Baldwin’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, ruling that the arrest was lawful. Baldwin then pleaded guilty to felony drug possession while reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The misdemeanor charge for drug paraphernalia was dismissed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Beasley did not have probable cause to arrest Baldwin for contempt of court based on the alleged violation of pre-release conditions. The court determined that pre-release conditions do not constitute an independent mandate of the court under Montana law, and thus, Baldwin’s arrest was unlawful. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the search of Baldwin’s car, which was conducted as a result of the unlawful arrest, should have been suppressed. The court found no applicable exceptions to the exclusionary rule, such as good faith or independent source exceptions, and concluded that the evidence was directly tied to the unlawful arrest. View "State v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Jaden Brown, a pregnant inmate at Cumberland County Jail, was transported to Maine Medical Center for childbirth. During her hospital stay, correction officers Daniel Haskell and Sam Dickey were present in her room. Brown alleged that Haskell and Dickey observed her naked body during medical procedures and the delivery of her baby, which she claimed violated her Fourth Amendment rights.The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied Haskell and Dickey's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the officers' observations of Brown's naked body were more than inadvertent, occasional, casual, or restricted. The court also ruled that such observations, if they occurred, would constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeal in part, stating it lacked jurisdiction to consider the officers' argument that they did not observe Brown's naked body, as this was a factual dispute. The court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment, holding that if the officers did observe Brown's naked body, it would constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The court emphasized that a search does not require deliberate intent to inspect a naked body and that such observations could violate clearly established law. View "Brown v. Dickey" on Justia Law