Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In September 2018, police officers in Fayetteville, North Carolina, observed a car performing a U-turn and stopping in front of Allen Wendell McNeil's house. After a brief interaction with the car's occupants, the police conducted a traffic stop and found a small bag of marijuana on the passenger. Without a warrant, the officers then went to McNeil's house for a "knock and talk." When McNeil's children answered the door and said he was not home, the officers proceeded to the backyard, where they found McNeil in a shed and detected the smell of marijuana. This led to McNeil's detention and the subsequent search and seizure of marijuana, money, and guns from his property.McNeil was charged with marijuana distribution and firearm possession. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 114 months in prison. McNeil's direct appeal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.McNeil filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search and for not pursuing a plea agreement despite his requests. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that McNeil's Fourth Amendment claim was frivolous and that his statements during the Rule 11 hearing precluded his ineffective assistance claim regarding the plea agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that McNeil's ineffective assistance claims could not be resolved on the existing record. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing McNeil's claims without an evidentiary hearing, as the facts surrounding the police officers' entry into the backyard and the plea negotiations required further factual development. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. View "United States v. McNeil" on Justia Law

An inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution, who is a practicing Muslim, filed a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC). He challenged WDOC's policy prohibiting inmates from leading religious programs when no outside religious leader or volunteer is available, claiming it resulted in unnecessary cancellations of religious programs. He also alleged that the cancellation of these programs breached a prior settlement agreement with WDOC.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of WDOC on the RLUIPA claim, finding that the policy was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest of maintaining prison safety and security. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the inmate on the state law breach-of-contract claim as to liability but relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the request for injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of WDOC on the RLUIPA claim, agreeing that the policy was the least restrictive means to ensure prison safety and security. However, the appellate court vacated the district court's partial judgment on the state law breach-of-contract claim. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction over the remedy portion of the claim while retaining jurisdiction over liability. The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over the entire state law claim. View "West v Hoy" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson, an inmate in Indiana, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he received inadequate dental and mental health care while incarcerated. The case was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Johnson's frequent transfers between prisons in Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia, which disrupted his mail service. Johnson claimed he never received the defendants' summary judgment motions due to these mail issues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana initially denied the defendants' summary judgment motions without prejudice, recognizing potential mail delivery problems. The court allowed the defendants to refile their motions and instructed them to notify the court if Johnson did not receive the filings. Despite these measures, Johnson did not respond to the refiled motions within the given 28-day period. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case. Johnson later filed a motion to vacate the judgment, asserting he never received the refiled motions, but the district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the procedural complexities but focused on whether Johnson had constructive notice of the summary judgment motions. The court concluded that Johnson had constructive notice because he received the district court's order resetting the briefing schedule and instructing him on how to proceed. The court found no substantive or procedural error in the district court's decision and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Johnson v Purdue" on Justia Law

Michael and Rebecca McIntosh owned a mobile home park in Madisonville, Kentucky. In 2020, a tenant complained about mold and mildew in one of the mobile homes. The City of Madisonville inspected the home and found it unsafe, condemning it and giving the McIntoshes 30 days to submit repair plans. The McIntoshes disputed the condemnation, claiming they made necessary repairs and attempted to contact city officials multiple times without success. The City demolished the mobile home a month later.The McIntoshes pursued a § 1983 action, alleging due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, leading the McIntoshes to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that while the City provided adequate notice of the condemnation, it failed to provide the McIntoshes with a pre-demolition hearing, as required by due process. The court noted that the City’s Code promised a hearing before a Local Appeals Board, which did not exist. The court also found that informal opportunities for a hearing were not adequately communicated to the McIntoshes. However, the court upheld the district court’s decision on the substantive due process claim, stating that the City’s actions did not rise to the level of conscience-shocking behavior. The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment on the procedural due process claim and affirmed the decision on the substantive due process claim, remanding the case for further proceedings on the procedural due process claim. View "McIntosh v. City of Madisonville" on Justia Law

Antonio Fuster went to the Chatham Township Police Department to report that his special needs child had accused an adult male relative of sexual misconduct. His interview with police was recorded on a body worn camera. Fuster and his wife, Brianna Devine, sought access to that video under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. They alleged inaccuracies in the initial police report and wanted the video to potentially file an internal affairs complaint.The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the body worn camera footage was a government record under OPRA but exempt from disclosure under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(b), which protects the confidentiality of information regarding individuals not arrested or charged. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the video was exempt from disclosure under judicial case law protecting uncharged individuals' law enforcement records.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case. The Court held that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(k) did not permit plaintiffs to review the video because Fuster had already requested the video be retained for three years, and Devine was not entitled to review it under the specified provisions. The Court also held that subsection (l) of the Body Worn Camera Law did not abrogate OPRA’s exemptions, but there was no OPRA exemption supporting the refusal to release the video. The Court found that OPRA does not contain an explicit exemption for information received by law enforcement regarding an individual who was not arrested or charged, and New Jersey case law had not established such an automatic grant of confidentiality.The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and ordered the release of the body worn camera footage to the plaintiffs, without reaching the common law claims. View "Fuster v. Township of Chatham" on Justia Law

George Rodrique, II, a photographer for WCVB-TV, sued his employer, Hearst Stations, Inc. ("Hearst"), after it denied his request for a religious exemption from the company's COVID-19 vaccination requirement and subsequently terminated him for refusing to receive the vaccine. Rodrique claimed that Hearst's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in employment.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Hearst's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Rodrique's objections to the vaccine were not religious in nature. The court did not address whether accommodating Rodrique's request would have imposed an undue hardship on Hearst.Rodrique appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, arguing that his objections were indeed religious and that granting the exemption would not have caused undue hardship. He contended that Hearst provided insufficient evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine reduces virus transmission.The First Circuit assumed, without deciding, that Rodrique's objections were religious. However, it affirmed the district court's summary judgment on different grounds, holding that Hearst reasonably relied on objective medical evidence, including public health guidance, to conclude that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19. The court found that Hearst's reliance on such evidence was reasonable and that accommodating Rodrique's request would have imposed an undue hardship on the company. Thus, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Hearst. View "Rodrique v. Hearst Communications, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2012, three people were shot and killed outside a nightclub in Houston, Texas. Feanyichi E. Uvukansi was identified by an eyewitness, Jeresano, who picked him out of a photo array. Uvukansi was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole. At trial, Jeresano testified that he had no agreement with prosecutors regarding his testimony, but it was later revealed that he did have an agreement that could reduce his federal drug sentence in exchange for his testimony.Uvukansi did not raise the issue of false testimony on direct appeal but did so in state habeas proceedings. The state district court found that Jeresano's testimony was false but deemed it immaterial because the jury was aware of parts of the agreement through other testimony. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Uvukansi’s application without a written order. Uvukansi then filed a Section 2254 application in federal district court, which was dismissed on the grounds that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the state district court applied the correct "reasonable likelihood" standard for materiality and did not impose a higher burden of proof on Uvukansi. The court also found that the state district court did not err in considering the false testimony's impact on Jeresano's credibility rather than the identification itself. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent and affirmed the dismissal of Uvukansi's Section 2254 application. View "Uvukansi v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

A pretrial detainee at Goose Creek Correctional Center was asked to provide a urine sample for random drug testing. Under the Department of Corrections (DOC) policy, inmates have two hours to provide a sample. The detainee attempted to comply but was unable to urinate within the required time. Consequently, he was charged with refusing to provide a urine sample, which is considered a high-moderate infraction, and was disciplined.The detainee pled not guilty at a disciplinary hearing, arguing that he tried to comply but could not urinate. The prison tribunal found him guilty using the preponderance of the evidence standard and imposed punitive segregation. The detainee appealed to the facility’s superintendent, who upheld the decision. He then appealed to the superior court, arguing that the preponderance of the evidence standard violated his due process rights and that he should have been offered a saliva test instead of a urine test.The superior court affirmed the administrative decision, concluding that the preponderance of the evidence standard is constitutional. The court also noted that the detainee did not raise the saliva test argument until his reply brief, thus it was not preserved for review.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that the Alaska Constitution permits the use of a preponderance of the evidence standard in prison disciplinary proceedings, balancing the inmate’s interest in avoiding harsher conditions against the prison’s interest in maintaining order. The court also declined to address the saliva test argument, as it was not properly preserved during the administrative proceedings or raised in a timely manner in the superior court. The decision of the superior court was affirmed. View "Valoaga v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Deari Cole was committed to a developmental center under California Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, which allows for the commitment of individuals with developmental disabilities who are deemed a danger to themselves or others. Cole was charged with several crimes and found incompetent to stand trial. Subsequently, he was committed to the Porterville Developmental Center for one year. Just before the expiration of his commitment, the People filed a petition to extend it, and Cole was held pending trial on the recommitment petition. Cole filed a petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus, arguing that equal protection principles required his release pending trial.The Contra Costa County Superior Court denied Cole's request for release pending trial, relying on section 6506, which allows for interim placement at a suitable facility. Cole's petition for writ of mandate or habeas corpus was summarily denied by the Court of Appeal. Cole then petitioned for review, and the California Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to vacate its order and issue an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and rejected Cole's equal protection arguments. The court held that the statutory scheme under section 6500, which allows for continued confinement pending a hearing on a recommitment petition, did not violate equal protection principles. The court reasoned that the differences between individuals with developmental disabilities and those with mental health disorders or found not guilty by reason of insanity justified the different procedures. The court concluded that the legislative distinctions were reasonable and factually based. Consequently, the court dismissed Cole's petition as moot, as he had already been released from custody for unrelated reasons. View "Cole v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

In the 1950s, the Tucson Unified School District (the District) operated a dual school system for Black and non-Black students. In 1974, class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of African American and Latino students, leading to a 1978 settlement agreement and desegregation decree. Over the years, the District undertook numerous efforts to remedy past discrimination. In 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's preliminary finding of unitary status, remanding the case for further supervision. A Unitary Status Plan (USP) was created in 2013 to guide the District towards unitary status.The District Court for the District of Arizona found partial unitary status in 2018, retaining jurisdiction over unresolved issues. By 2021, the court found the District had achieved unitary status in most areas, except for two subsections of the USP. In 2022, after further revisions and compliance, the district court declared the District had achieved full unitary status and ended federal supervision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that the District had achieved unitary status, meaning it had complied in good faith with the desegregation decree and eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable. The court found no error in the district court's conclusions regarding student assignments, transportation, staff diversity, quality of education, student discipline, family and community engagement, and transparency and accountability. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that perfect implementation of the USP was not necessary for unitary status and that the District had demonstrated a lasting commitment to the USP and the Constitution. View "MENDOZA V. TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law