Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

MaChelle Joseph, a former head women’s basketball coach at Georgia Tech, and Thomas Crowther, a former art professor at Augusta University, filed separate complaints alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX and other laws. Joseph claimed that Georgia Tech provided fewer resources to the women’s basketball team compared to the men’s team and retaliated against her for raising these issues. Crowther alleged that he was retaliated against after being accused of sexual harassment and participating in the investigation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Joseph’s Title IX claims, ruling that Title VII precluded them, and granted summary judgment against her remaining claims. For Crowther, the district court denied the motion to dismiss his Title IX claims, allowing them to proceed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court held that Title IX does not provide an implied right of action for sex discrimination in employment, reversing the district court’s decision to allow Crowther’s Title IX claims and affirming the dismissal of Joseph’s Title IX claims. The court also ruled that Crowther’s retaliation claim under Title IX, based on his participation in the investigation, did not state a valid claim. Additionally, the court found that Joseph’s claims of sex discrimination under Title VII, based on her association with the women’s team, were not viable. Finally, the court affirmed the summary judgment against Joseph’s retaliation claims under Title VII, Title IX, and the Georgia Whistleblower Act, concluding that she failed to show that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. View "Joseph v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" on Justia Law

Randy Ethan Halprin, a member of the "Texas Seven," escaped from prison in December 2000 and was involved in the murder of Irving Police Officer Aubrey Hawkins during a robbery. Halprin was charged with capital murder and, in 2003, was convicted and sentenced to death by Judge Vickers Cunningham. Halprin's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and his initial habeas application was denied. Subsequent applications were dismissed. In 2019, Halprin filed a new writ application alleging that Judge Cunningham was biased against him because he is Jewish, violating his right to due process and the free exercise of his religion.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed Halprin's claim after the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. The trial court found that Judge Cunningham exhibited actual bias against Halprin due to his Jewish faith and recommended granting Halprin a new trial. The State agreed that the evidence showed Cunningham's bias. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals independently reviewed the record and confirmed that Cunningham's anti-Semitic remarks and behavior demonstrated actual bias.The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that Halprin had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Judge Cunningham was biased against him at the time of the trial. This bias constituted a structural due process violation, entitling Halprin to a new trial. The court granted Halprin a new trial and dismissed his second claim challenging the constitutionality of the future dangerousness special issue as an abuse of the writ. View "In re Halprin" on Justia Law

Thomas Eugene Creech, sentenced to death in 1995, faced a failed execution attempt in early 2024 due to the inability to establish reliable intravenous access. Following this, Creech filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that any further attempt to execute him would violate his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho dismissed Creech’s petition, construing his Eighth Amendment argument as a challenge to the method of execution, which it determined could not be litigated in a post-conviction action. The court suggested that Creech could pursue his Eighth Amendment challenge through other legal avenues, such as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court also addressed the merits, finding that a second execution attempt did not violate the Fifth Amendment as it did not impose more punishment than authorized, nor did it violate the Eighth Amendment as the failed attempt did not involve intentional or malicious infliction of unnecessary pain.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s dismissal. It held that Creech’s claims were properly raised under Idaho Code section 19-2719 but found no genuine issue of material fact warranting an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that the failed execution did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, as the psychological strain and pain experienced were inherent in any execution method. Additionally, the court ruled that a second execution attempt did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the initial attempt did not complete the punishment authorized by the legislature. Creech’s state constitutional claims were not considered as they were not adequately preserved for appeal. View "Creech v. State" on Justia Law

Six former commanders of the Cook County Jail filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, claiming their layoffs in late 2017 violated their First Amendment rights. The layoffs occurred during a budget crisis, which led to the elimination of their positions. The plaintiffs argued that the layoffs were retaliatory, linked to their support for unionization efforts by the Teamsters Union, which the Sheriff opposed.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the Sheriff. The court found that the evidence did not support an inference that the commanders' pro-union speech caused the layoffs. The court concluded that the layoffs were a result of a significant budget shortfall, not retaliation for union activities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the budget crisis was the primary reason for the layoffs. It noted that the Illinois Labor Relations Board had determined the commanders were supervisors and not entitled to collective bargaining. The court found no evidence that the Sheriff's Office targeted the commanders for their union activities, as the layoffs affected all commanders regardless of their stance on unionization. The court also observed that the overall unionized workforce increased after the layoffs, further undermining the plaintiffs' claims of anti-union retaliation. The court concluded that reasonable jurors could not find the Sheriff's explanation for the layoffs to be pretextual. View "Consolino v. Dart" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a transgender woman, was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and prescribed hormone replacement therapy (HRT) while detained at the Oklahoma County jail. After being transferred to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC), she continued her HRT regimen. However, upon her transfer to the Dick Conner Correctional Center, a staff psychologist evaluated her and concluded she did not have gender dysphoria. Based on this evaluation, the prison physician at the Davis Correctional Facility, where she was subsequently transferred, decided to taper and discontinue her HRT.The plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against the prison physician and the health services administrator. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that no reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference because the discontinuation of HRT was in compliance with correctional policy, which required a confirmed diagnosis of gender dysphoria for HRT to continue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the defendants did not act with deliberate indifference by discontinuing the plaintiff’s HRT based on the psychologist’s evaluation and the correctional policy. The court found no evidence that the defendants knew or strongly suspected that the psychologist’s diagnosis was incorrect. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s disagreement with the diagnosis and the course of treatment did not constitute a constitutional violation. The court also rejected the argument that the defendants were required to arrange for a second evaluation, as there was no indication that they suspected the initial diagnosis was wrong. View "Johnson v. Sanders" on Justia Law

Cedric Allen Ricks was convicted of capital murder in Texas state court for killing his girlfriend and her eight-year-old son and was sentenced to death. After his direct appeal and state habeas petition were denied, Ricks filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court also denied, including a certificate of appealability (COA).Ricks sought a COA from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on several claims. The district court had denied his Batson claim, which alleged racial discrimination in jury selection, finding no prima facie case of discrimination and accepting the prosecution's race-neutral justifications. The district court also found no pattern of racially disparate questioning. The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that reasonable jurists would not find the district court's assessment debatable or wrong, and thus denied the COA on this claim.Ricks also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not raising the Batson claim on appeal. The state court had denied this claim on the merits. The Fifth Circuit found that since the Batson claim was meritless, the appellate counsel's failure to raise it was neither unreasonable nor prejudicial, and denied the COA on this claim as well.Ricks argued that his due process rights were violated when the jury saw him in shackles. The district court rejected this claim, noting that Ricks exposed his shackles himself and failed to show any substantial influence on the jury's verdict. The Fifth Circuit found this claim procedurally defaulted because it was not raised on direct appeal and was barred by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Consequently, no COA was issued for this claim.Lastly, Ricks claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not objecting to the shackling and for not challenging the State's peremptory strikes against female venire members. The Fifth Circuit found the trial counsel's decisions reasonable and strategic, and thus denied the COA on these claims.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion for a COA on all claims. View "Ricks v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Thomas Swinford was shot and killed by Athens-Clarke County police officers after he refused to drop a gun and instead raised and pointed it at the officers. His widow, Jayne Swinford, filed a lawsuit in Georgia state court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia’s wrongful death statute against seven officers, the police chief, and the county government. The case was removed to federal court.The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on qualified and official immunity grounds, relying on body camera footage showing the events leading up to the shooting. The district court considered the footage and granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the officers acted reasonably and did not violate Thomas’s constitutional rights. The court also denied Mrs. Swinford’s motion to amend her complaint and her motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the district court properly considered the body camera footage under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine. The footage showed that the officers had probable cause to believe Thomas posed a serious threat when he raised his gun at them, justifying their use of deadly force. The court found that the officers did not use excessive force and were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the supervisory liability claim against the police chief and the Monell claim against the county also failed.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders, including the denial of Mrs. Swinford’s motion to amend her complaint and her motion for reconsideration. View "Swinford v. Santos" on Justia Law

Wayne County foreclosed on Tonya Bowles's property to satisfy her tax debt and sold it, keeping the surplus proceeds. Bowles filed a § 1983 lawsuit against the county and its treasurer, seeking to recover the surplus and to certify a class of similarly affected former property owners. The district court certified the class without discovery, relying on a similar case's decision.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan certified the class in 2022. However, subsequent legal developments, including decisions in Fox v. Saginaw County and other cases, highlighted the need for a rigorous analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. These decisions emphasized the necessity of proving, rather than merely alleging, compliance with Rule 23's requirements and questioned the manageability of class actions in takings cases.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court did not conduct the required rigorous analysis of Rule 23's requirements. The court noted that the district court relied on an incomplete record and did not address several critical issues, such as the calculation of damages, potential unique defenses, and the role of third-party lienholders. Additionally, the court highlighted that Bowles's proposed class definition included claims for surplus equity, which are unmanageable in class actions and not permissible under recent case law.The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court instructed the district court to conduct a thorough analysis of Rule 23's requirements, considering recent legal developments and ensuring that Bowles can prove numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority. The court emphasized the need for a complete evidentiary record and a detailed forecast of how the litigation would proceed as a class action. View "Bowles v. Sabree" on Justia Law

In 1986, Carré Sutton, a minor, moved to New York City to work as a model for Elite Models Management. Elite executive Trudi Tapscott sent Sutton to Paris to live with another Elite executive, Gérald Marie, who allegedly raped her. Sutton's claims, which would typically be time-barred, were revived under New York’s Child Victims Act (CVA), which temporarily revived claims based on the sexual abuse of minors.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Sutton’s claims, concluding that the CVA did not apply because the abuse occurred outside New York. Additionally, the court dismissed the claims against Marie for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that Sutton had not established the court's jurisdiction over Marie, who resides in Spain.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in its interpretation of the CVA, noting that subsequent state-court decisions clarified that the CVA revives claims arising from out-of-state abuse if the victim was a New York resident at the time. The appellate court also determined that Sutton plausibly alleged she was a New York resident when the abuse occurred. Furthermore, the court held that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the claims against Marie for lack of personal jurisdiction without providing Sutton an opportunity to establish jurisdiction.The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing Sutton’s claims as time-barred, vacated the judgment regarding personal jurisdiction over Marie, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sutton v. Tapscott" on Justia Law

Benjamin Benfer and his wife were pulled over by Officer Barry Calvert for allegedly running a red light and because their vehicle matched the description of a stolen car. A confrontation ensued, during which Calvert used his K-9 to subdue Benfer. Both Benfer and his wife were arrested and charged with resisting arrest and interference with public duties, but the charges were later dismissed.Benfer filed a lawsuit against Calvert and the City of Baytown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, claiming violations of his constitutional rights and state tort claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, ruling that Calvert did not violate Benfer’s constitutional rights, that Benfer’s state tort claims were not valid under Texas law, and that Benfer did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims against the City under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Calvert had reasonable suspicion to stop Benfer, probable cause to arrest him for resisting arrest, and did not use excessive force in deploying his K-9. The court also found that Benfer’s state law assault claim against Calvert was barred by the Texas Tort Claims Act, which requires such claims to be brought against the municipality, not the individual officer. Additionally, the court ruled that Benfer failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims against the City of Baytown for inadequate policies, failure to train, and ratification of Calvert’s conduct. View "Benfer v. City of Baytown" on Justia Law