Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

James Conn murdered Savannah Puckett, and his parents, Mollie and Michael Slaybaugh, suffered property damage when police arrested Conn at their home. The Slaybaughs filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking compensation for the damage under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and its Tennessee Constitution counterpart.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the Slaybaughs' claims. The court ruled that the police actions did not constitute a taking for public use under the Fifth Amendment because the damage occurred while enforcing criminal laws. The court also dismissed the state-law claim, stating that the Tennessee Constitution offers protections co-extensive with the Fifth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Slaybaughs did not state a valid takings claim because the police actions were privileged under the search-and-arrest privilege. This privilege allows law enforcement to use reasonable force to enter property and make an arrest without being liable for resulting property damage, provided the actions are lawful and reasonable. The court found no evidence suggesting the police acted unlawfully or unreasonably. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of both the federal and state constitutional claims. View "Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County" on Justia Law

A federal inmate, Mitchell Garraway, filed a Bivens action against three prison officials, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his safety, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Garraway claimed that despite informing the officials of his cellmate's violent behavior and requesting a cell change, they refused, resulting in an assault by his cellmate. The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing no Bivens remedy exists for failure to protect an inmate from prisoner violence. The district court denied this motion, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, the officials sought reconsideration, which was also denied. They then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially denied the officials' motion for judgment on the pleadings, agreeing with Garraway that his case did not differ meaningfully from Farmer v. Brennan. After the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert, the officials filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied by the district court, reaffirming that Farmer remained intact post-Egbert. The officials then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that district court orders extending Bivens, absent a denial of qualified immunity, are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court emphasized that delaying review of such orders does not threaten significant public interests and that any improper judicial intrusion into the legislative function can be effectively rectified upon review of a final judgment. The court concluded that the next logical step in the litigation would be for the federal-officer defendant to claim qualified immunity, the denial of which would be immediately appealable. View "GARRAWAY V. CIUFO" on Justia Law

K.N., an eight-year-old boy with multiple disabilities, lives in a non-wheelchair-accessible apartment in the District of Columbia. His mother, Margda Pierre-Noel, requested that the District and his school, Bridges Public Charter School, provide assistance to move K.N. from their apartment door to the school bus. The District denied the request, citing its policy that staff only retrieve students from the outermost door of their dwelling and do not physically lift or carry students.The Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) hearing officer ruled that it was beyond his authority to order the requested assistance but required OSSE to offer transportation services to and from the outer door of K.N.'s apartment building. Pierre-Noel then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which granted summary judgment in favor of the District, ruling that the service requested was not a transportation service under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IDEA requires the District to provide door-to-door transportation services for K.N., as such services are necessary for him to benefit from his special education. The court found that the term "transportation" under the IDEA includes moving a child from their apartment door to the vehicle that will take them to school. The court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The appeal was dismissed as moot with respect to Bridges Public Charter School, as K.N. was no longer enrolled there. View "Pierre-Noel v. Bridges Public Charter School" on Justia Law

In the early morning of December 21, 2019, Corey Spiller went to assist his girlfriend, Dashanelle Moore, after her minor car accident on a Houston expressway. While conversing with officers at the scene, Sergeant Jared Lindsay arrived and directed Moore to a nearby truck stop for further procedures, instructing Spiller to follow in his car. When Spiller questioned the officers about Moore, Lindsay became enraged, seized Spiller by the neck, and slammed him onto a parked car, leading to a scuffle where Spiller was tased and arrested. The charges against Spiller were later dropped.Spiller filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Lindsay, Harris County, Harris County Constable Precinct 7, and Chief Constable May Walker, alleging excessive force, false arrest, bystander liability, retaliation, and ADA violations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed claims against Harris County, Precinct 7, and Walker for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment for Lindsay on the basis of qualified immunity. Spiller appealed, challenging the summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment excessive force, false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, and bystander liability claims against Lindsay, and the dismissal of his Monell claim against Harris County.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for Lindsay on the excessive force claim, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Lindsay's use of force was excessive and whether Spiller's actions justified such force. The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on the false arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims, concluding that Lindsay had probable cause for Spiller’s arrest. The court also upheld the dismissal of Spiller’s Monell claim against Harris County for failing to allege specific facts linking his injury to a county policy or custom. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "Spiller v. Harris County" on Justia Law

A woman experiencing psychotic delusions was admitted to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API) for a mental health evaluation. Her treating psychiatrist identified three possible causes of her delusions, including psychosis secondary to lupus. Despite showing signs of improvement with antipsychotic medication, she was discharged against medical advice but was readmitted five days later. The superior court ordered a 30-day involuntary commitment, concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that she was gravely disabled due to mental illness.The superior court found that the woman was mentally ill and gravely disabled, based on the psychiatrist's testimony about her delusional beliefs and behaviors, such as believing she had psychic powers and was the subject of a non-consensual documentary. The psychiatrist also noted her refusal to eat or drink adequately, posing a medical concern. Despite the possibility of lupus, the psychiatrist recommended the same treatment for her psychosis and testified that a lupus diagnosis would not change his commitment recommendation.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court's commitment order. The court held that the statutory definition of "mental illness" does not exclude mental or emotional impairments resulting from physical conditions like lupus. The court also concluded that due process does not require ruling out physical conditions as the cause of mental illness. The psychiatrist's testimony provided clear and convincing evidence of the woman's mental illness, and the court found that involuntary commitment to API was the least restrictive alternative treatment available. View "In re Hospitalization of Kara K." on Justia Law

A group of LGBTQ+ students sued the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that they experienced discrimination at religious colleges and universities that receive federal funding. They challenged the religious exemption to Title IX, which allows religious institutions to discriminate based on gender if it conflicts with their religious tenets. The plaintiffs claimed this exemption violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. They also argued that the Department's 2020 amendment to Title IX regulations, which clarified that institutions do not need to submit a written statement to claim the exemption, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. It ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the religious exemption violated the First and Fifth Amendments. The court also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 2020 amendment under the APA. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, concluding that any amendment would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the Title IX religious exemption does not violate the Establishment Clause under the historical practices and understanding test set forth in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. The court found that the exemption is consistent with a long history of religious accommodations in U.S. law. The court also held that the exemption does not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee, as it is substantially related to the important governmental objective of accommodating religious exercise. Finally, the court agreed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the 2020 amendment, as they did not show that the rule caused them harm. The court also upheld the denial of leave to amend the complaint. View "HUNTER V. USEDU" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued multiple officers from the Mesa County Sheriff's Office and Grand Junction Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. The officers executed a search warrant for a stolen Sno-Cat at Plaintiff's property, which included a garage and an attached residence. Believing the Sno-Cat was in the garage, officers obtained a search warrant and returned with SWAT units. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they fired chemical munitions into the residence, causing significant property damage. The search revealed no humans, only a dog, and Plaintiff claimed over $50,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, granting qualified immunity to the defendants. The court relied on documents outside the complaint, including a search warrant, supporting affidavit, and an after-action report (AAR), despite Plaintiff's objections. Plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), which the district court also dismissed, again granting qualified immunity and considering the same external documents.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court erred by considering the AAR without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and allowing for discovery. The Tenth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff plausibly alleged individual actions by each defendant and that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant by entering the residence, which could not house the Sno-Cat. The court also found that the officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by failing to knock and announce their presence and using excessive force without exigent circumstances. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cuervo v. Sorenson" on Justia Law

In 2000, Adnan Syed was convicted of the murder of Hae Min Lee and sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years. In 2022, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City moved to vacate Syed’s conviction, citing new evidence and alleged Brady violations. Young Lee, the victim’s brother, was given less than one business day’s notice of the vacatur hearing, which he attended remotely. The court granted the motion to vacate and ordered the State to either retry Syed or enter a nolle prosequi (nol pros) within 30 days. The State later entered a nol pros, effectively dismissing the charges against Syed.Young Lee appealed the vacatur order, arguing that his rights as a victim’s representative were violated due to insufficient notice and the inability to attend the hearing in person. The Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the circuit court’s order, reinstated Syed’s convictions, and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the nol pros did not moot Lee’s appeal and that Lee had the right to reasonable notice and to attend the hearing in person.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, holding that the entry of the nol pros did not moot Lee’s appeal. The court ruled that a victim has the right to be heard at a vacatur hearing under CP § 11-403, which includes hearings where the alteration of a sentence is considered. The court also held that Lee’s rights were violated due to insufficient notice and the inability to attend the hearing in person. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings, starting from the point immediately after the State’s Attorney filed the motion to vacate. View "Syed v. Lee" on Justia Law