Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

David Wood was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in 1992 for the brutal murders of six females in 1987. The victims were found buried near El Paso, and evidence indicated that Wood had sexually assaulted them before killing them. Wood's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). Over the years, Wood pursued extensive litigation in state and federal courts, including multiple motions for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted some of his motions, but the results did not exonerate him. Subsequent motions were denied, and the CCA affirmed these denials, concluding that Wood had engaged in a pattern of piecemeal litigation and delay.Wood then filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the CCA's construction of Chapter 64 violated his procedural due process rights. He claimed that the CCA's consistent denial of DNA testing rendered the state-created testing right illusory and that the CCA's interpretation of the statute's unreasonable-delay provision was novel and unforeseeable. The district court dismissed Wood's complaint and denied his motion to stay his execution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Wood lacked standing for his first claim because a favorable ruling would not substantially likely lead to DNA testing. For his second claim, the court found it meritless, as the CCA's interpretation of the unreasonable-delay provision was neither novel nor unforeseeable. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order and judgment and denied Wood's renewed motion to stay his execution. View "Wood v. Patton" on Justia Law

Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on a wet shower floor in a county jail. She pursued constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county, corrections officers, and medical personnel. Coleman claimed that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause and that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care. She also questioned whether the county could invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all claims against all parties. The court found that Coleman failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation regarding the slippery shower and did not connect the inadequate medical care to a county policy or custom. The court also held that Ohio law granted immunity to Hamilton County on the negligence claim. The court allowed Coleman to conduct limited discovery to identify unnamed officers and nurses, but her subsequent amended complaint was dismissed as it was filed outside the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal, holding that Coleman’s claims accrued on the date of her accident and that her amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also found that Coleman did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling, as she did not allege facts showing that she was intentionally misled or tricked into missing the deadline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. View "Coleman v. Hamilton County Bd. of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

In 1995, Garr Keith Hardin and Jeffrey Clark were convicted of murdering Rhonda Sue Warford based on forensic evidence and witness testimonies. Robert Thurman, a forensic serologist, testified that a hair found at the crime scene was similar to Hardin’s hair. After over two decades in prison, DNA testing revealed that the hair did not belong to Hardin, leading a state court to vacate their convictions. Hardin and Clark then sued Thurman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he failed to disclose observation notes that suggested the hair might not have matched Hardin’s hair sample, violating his obligations under Brady v. Maryland.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied Thurman’s qualified-immunity defense for Hardin’s Brady claim but granted summary judgment on other claims. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Thurman should have recognized the exculpatory value of his notes and that the notes were material to Hardin’s defense. The court also held that Thurman could not invoke qualified immunity because Hardin’s Brady rights were clearly established before 1992.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision in part and dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Thurman’s arguments that the notes were not exculpatory or material, as these were mixed questions of law and fact. However, the court rejected Thurman’s argument that the law in the mid-1990s did not clearly establish that Brady’s duty of disclosure applied to forensic scientists, affirming that such duties were clearly established and applicable to Thurman. View "Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government" on Justia Law

Richard Hightower, a pretrial detainee, was attacked by his cellmate, Anthony Tyler, in a Philadelphia jail, resulting in Hightower's paralysis. Hightower was classified as a low-security risk, while Tyler was classified as a high-security risk with a history of violent behavior. Due to a mistake by a prison health services company, Tyler was placed in Hightower's intake cell instead of being transferred to a permanent cell. Tyler's aggressive behavior escalated, culminating in a violent attack on Hightower.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Philadelphia and the guards. Hightower did not appeal the judgment for the guard but did appeal the judgment for the city.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Hightower failed to prove that the city caused any constitutional violation. To succeed in his Monell claim, Hightower needed to show that the city had an unconstitutional policy or custom or was deliberately indifferent to inmates' rights. The court found that the city had no policy of not separating inmates by security-risk level during intake and that the lack of a policy is not a policy. Additionally, Hightower could not show a custom that violated his rights or that the city acted with deliberate indifference. The court concluded that the risk to Hightower was not so obvious that the city could be held liable without a pattern of similar violations.The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Philadelphia. View "Hightower v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tiffaney Whitt, on behalf of her minor children, and Jeremiah Parker, Whitt’s adult son, filed a lawsuit against Kearney School District and Durham School Services, L.P., due to racial harassment experienced by Parker and his siblings on a school bus operated by Durham. Plaintiffs alleged a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim against Durham, asserting they were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between Kearney and Durham, which required safe, harassment-free transportation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied Durham’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, which challenged the validity of Plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim. Durham then filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause in its contract with Kearney. The district court denied this motion, concluding that Durham waived its right to enforce the arbitration clause by not raising it earlier in the litigation. Durham appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Durham knew of its right to arbitrate, as it possessed the contract containing the arbitration clause, and acted inconsistently with that right by engaging in extensive litigation and discovery before filing the motion to compel arbitration. The court also noted that the district court’s consideration of prejudice to Plaintiffs, although erroneous, did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The appellate court rejected Durham’s argument that it could not have known to seek arbitration until the district court’s summary judgment ruling and found that Durham’s actions were inconsistent with preserving its right to arbitrate. The court also denied Plaintiffs’ request to adopt a process for certifying interlocutory appeals as frivolous and their request for costs under Fed. R. App. P. 38. View "Parker v. Durham School Services, L.P." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Kenston Harry was convicted of possessing controlled substances with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute the same. The case centers on the use of a stationary pole camera by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to monitor the exterior of Harry's business, Action Audio, for approximately 50 days without a warrant. The camera captured footage of the business's exterior, parking lot, and occasionally the interior when the garage door was open. Harry was arrested after investigators found narcotics and firearms at Action Audio and his residence.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Harry's motion to suppress the pole-camera evidence, which was introduced at trial. The jury convicted Harry, and the district court sentenced him to ten years for the fentanyl- and cocaine-related charges, including conspiracy, and five years for the marijuana charge, to run concurrently. The court also denied Harry's request for safety-valve relief from the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the use of the stationary pole camera did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search, as Harry did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the publicly visible areas of his business. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying Harry safety-valve relief, as he failed to prove that the firearms found were not connected to his drug-trafficking activities. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harry" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs David Moore and David Ermold sued Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to issue them a marriage license, claiming it violated their constitutional right to marry. This refusal occurred after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing all marriage licenses until the state provided her with an accommodation. Plaintiffs sought damages for the emotional distress caused by Davis's actions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on liability, and a jury awarded them compensatory damages. Davis appealed, arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity, had defenses under the Free Exercise Clause and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and that the evidence of emotional distress was insufficient to support the jury's award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity because Obergefell clearly established the right to same-sex marriage, and Davis's actions violated that right. The court also rejected Davis's Free Exercise Clause defense, stating that the First Amendment does not protect state actions that violate constitutional rights. Additionally, the court found that Kentucky's RFRA did not apply in this case because the state was not a party to the lawsuit.The court further upheld the jury's award of damages, finding that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of emotional distress. The court noted that the plaintiffs' detailed testimony about their emotional harm was corroborated and not merely conclusory. Davis's request for remittitur was not considered because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief. The Sixth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Ermold v. Davis" on Justia Law

A bakery, owned by Catharine Miller, refused to sell a predesigned, plain white cake to a same-sex couple, the Rodriguez-Del Rios, for their wedding reception. The bakery's policy prohibited the sale of any preordered cake for same-sex weddings based on Miller's religious beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman. The couple ultimately obtained a similar cake from another bakery.The Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit against the bakery and Miller, alleging discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The Kern County Superior Court ruled in favor of the bakery, concluding there was no intentional discrimination and that Miller's referral of the couple to another bakery constituted full and equal access under the UCRA. The court also found that the bakery's refusal was protected by the First Amendment as both pure speech and expressive conduct.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the bakery's policy was facially discriminatory as it required a distinction in service based on the sexual orientation of the end user. The court concluded that the trial court erred in its determination that the policy was facially neutral and in its application of the intentional discrimination standard. The court also found that Miller's referral to another bakery did not satisfy the UCRA's full and equal access requirement.Regarding the First Amendment defenses, the appellate court held that the plain white cake was not pure speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the cake was a generic, multi-purpose product and did not convey any particularized message about marriage. The court also upheld the UCRA's application under the federal and state Constitutions' free exercise clauses, concluding that the law is neutral and generally applicable and that there are no less restrictive means to achieve the state's compelling interest in ensuring full and equal access to goods and services irrespective of sexual orientation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Civil Rights Dept. v. Cathy's Creations" on Justia Law

Triston Harris Steinman was stopped by Nevada State Trooper William Boyer for speeding. During the stop, Boyer observed an ammunition box in Steinman's car and learned that Steinman had a felony conviction. Boyer asked Steinman to exit the vehicle and sit in the patrol car while he ran a criminal history check. Steinman admitted to having ammunition but denied having firearms. Boyer eventually seized the car and obtained a search warrant, leading to the discovery of firearms, ammunition, and other contraband.The District Court for the District of Nevada suppressed the evidence, ruling that Boyer unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion and lacked probable cause to seize the vehicle. The court also found the search warrant overbroad and invalid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Boyer did not unlawfully prolong the stop, as his actions were within the scope of the traffic stop's mission and did not measurably extend its duration. The court also found that Boyer had reasonable suspicion of an independent offense after learning of Steinman's felony conviction. Additionally, the court ruled that Boyer had probable cause to seize the vehicle based on evidence of federal and state law violations. The court concluded that the search of the vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, despite the overbroad warrant. Thus, the suppression of the evidence was reversed. View "USA V. STEINMAN" on Justia Law

Rebecca Hartzell, a parent of children attending Dove Mountain K-CSTEM school, was banned from the school premises following an incident where she allegedly assaulted the school principal, Andrea Divijak. Hartzell claimed that she was banned in retaliation for her protected speech criticizing the school and its administration. The Marana Unified School District and Divijak argued that the ban was due to Hartzell's conduct, specifically the alleged assault.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Hartzell's procedural due process claim, her First Amendment retaliation claim against Divijak, and part of her defamation claim. The court also denied Hartzell's motion to amend her complaint to add a First Amendment theory to her procedural due process claim. At trial, the court precluded Hartzell from pursuing a Monell claim against the District based on a "final policymaker" theory and granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the District on her First Amendment claim. The jury found in favor of Divijak on the remaining defamation claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Hartzell's "final policymaker" theory but erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on her First Amendment claim against the District. The court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Hartzell was banned pursuant to an unconstitutional District policy prohibiting "offensive or inappropriate" speech. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that Divijak was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. Additionally, the court reversed the summary judgment on Hartzell's defamation claim regarding one of the documents sent to her employer, finding it potentially defamatory. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "HARTZELL V. MARANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT" on Justia Law