Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves several special education students who alleged that their teacher physically and emotionally abused them. The students, who have various disabilities affecting their communication abilities, were assigned to the same classroom at Elm Street Elementary School in Coweta County, Georgia. The teacher, Catherine Sprague, was hired by the principal, Dr. Christi Hildebrand, despite lacking special education certification. Throughout the fall of 2019, the students exhibited signs of distress, and their parents noticed behavioral changes and physical signs of mistreatment. A paraprofessional, Nicole Marshall, reported multiple instances of abuse by Sprague to Hildebrand, who delayed reporting these allegations to law enforcement and the students' parents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the students' complaint. The court ruled that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) following the Supreme Court's decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. The court also found that the students failed to state a constitutional violation against Hildebrand and the school district, and that Hildebrand was entitled to qualified immunity. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under Title II of the ADA, as Title II incorporates the remedies of the Rehabilitation Act, which the Supreme Court in Cummings ruled does not allow for emotional distress damages. However, the appellate court found that the district court erred by not considering whether the students might be entitled to other forms of relief under Title II, such as damages for physical harm or nominal damages. The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the section 1983 claims, ruling that the alleged abuse did not meet the "shock-the-conscience" standard required for a substantive due process violation. The case was remanded for further proceedings to consider other potential relief under Title II. View "A.W. v. Coweta County School District" on Justia Law

In May 2020, following the death of George Floyd, several individuals participated in or were near protests in downtown Houston. They allege that they were falsely arrested by City of Houston police officers who used "kettle maneuvers" to confine and arrest protesters. The plaintiffs claim that then-Chief of Police Art Acevedo implemented a policy of "kettling" and arresting protesters. They sued the City and Acevedo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, based on the assertion that there was no probable cause for their arrests under section 42.03 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibits obstructing passageways.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs under section 42.03 and dismissed the claims against both the City and Acevedo. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two previous panels had addressed similar issues with conflicting outcomes. In Utley v. City of Houston, the panel found probable cause for arrest and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit. Conversely, in Herrera v. Acevedo, the panel found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged false arrest and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The current panel agreed with the Utley decision, holding that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing a passageway under section 42.03. The court found that the size and location of the protests provided sufficient probable cause for the arrests, thus negating any First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment violations. Consequently, the claims against the City and Acevedo were dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wade v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to the defendant's home after his ex-girlfriend reported that he had threatened suicide during a phone call. The officers, aware of his history of alcohol abuse and mental health issues, entered his home without a warrant after he failed to respond to their attempts to contact him. Inside, an officer shot the defendant, believing he was armed. The defendant was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer.The District Court of the Third Judicial District denied the defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss and suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The court also denied his motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation, where the defendant claimed the State failed to disclose that the officer who shot him had been shot at in a prior incident. The jury found the defendant guilty.The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court held that the officers' warrantless entry was justified under the community caretaker doctrine, given the exigent circumstances of a potential suicide. The court also found no Brady violation, as the undisclosed evidence about the officer's prior incident would not have changed the trial's outcome. The court concluded that the officers acted reasonably in their entry and subsequent actions, and the defendant's conviction was upheld. View "State v. Case" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Word Seed Church, now known as Grace Fellowship Covenant Church, sought to establish a permanent location in the Village of Hazel Crest but faced difficulties due to the village's zoning ordinance. The church claimed that the ordinance discriminated against religious assemblies by not listing churches as a permitted use in any zoning district and requiring a special use permit for churches in certain residential districts. The church argued that this process was burdensome and discriminatory, violating the Equal Protection Clause and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois initially denied the church's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the church had standing but was unlikely to succeed on the merits. Later, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the village, concluding that the church did not have a property interest in Hazel Crest and had not shown that comparable secular organizations were treated more favorably. The court also rejected the church's vagueness challenge to the zoning ordinance. The church did not appeal the summary judgment but instead filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, arguing that the district court had evaluated the wrong version of the zoning ordinance. The district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion. The appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision. The court noted that the church's argument regarding the zoning ordinance amendments was not raised during the summary judgment proceedings and that the church had waived any challenge to the B-2 district, which was affected by the 2008 amendment. The appellate court concluded that the church's difficulties in finding a property were due to the lack of suitable parcels, not the zoning ordinance. View "Word Seed Church v. Village of Hazel Crest" on Justia Law

On February 1, 2020, four Pineville Police Department officers responded to a 911 call about a Black man allegedly waving a gun. They found Timothy Caraway walking alone with a cellphone in his hand. The officers, with weapons drawn, commanded Caraway to raise his hands and drop what they thought was a gun. As Caraway reached into his jacket to discard the gun, Officers Adam Roberts and Jamon Griffin fired twelve shots, hitting Caraway four times. Caraway sued the officers and the City of Pineville under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina law, alleging excessive force and assault and battery, among other claims.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted summary judgment to the officers, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim and public official immunity on the state-law assault and battery claim. The court concluded that the officers' use of deadly force was reasonable because Caraway's gun was pointed at them in the moments before the shooting.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the officers' use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because Caraway's gun was pointed at the officers, posing an immediate threat. The court also upheld the grant of public official immunity on the state-law claims, finding that the officers acted without malice. The court declined to segment the shooting into different phases, noting the entire sequence lasted only a few seconds. View "Caraway v. City of Pineville" on Justia Law

Sherita Hicks was mistakenly identified and arrested for an assault she did not commit. Detective Gregory Pamer, leading the investigation, showed the victim, Devante Allen, a photo lineup that included Hicks, whom Allen incorrectly identified as the female assailant. Pamer also discovered that a van used in the assault was registered to Hicks and that the attack was retribution for a prior break-in at her home. Despite later receiving exculpatory information implicating another woman, Pamer proceeded with Hicks' arrest. Hicks was jailed for one night before posting bond, and the charges against her were eventually dismissed.Hicks filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple parties, including Pamer and Anne Arundel County, alleging unlawful arrest, detention, and malicious prosecution. The case proceeded to trial against Pamer and the County on claims of malicious prosecution and gross negligence. During the trial, a juror was dismissed for violating court instructions by speaking to Hicks, despite objections from Hicks' counsel. The jury ultimately found in favor of Pamer on all counts, leading Hicks to file a motion for a new trial, which was denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the juror for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 47(c). The court also found no reversible error in the jury instructions, which adequately stated the controlling law. The jury's verdict in favor of Pamer on all counts was upheld, and the court did not need to address issues related to punitive damages or the inclusion of the County on the verdict sheet, as there was no underlying liability. View "Hicks v. Anne Arundel County" on Justia Law

Christopher Redding was wanted for parole violations related to robbery charges and was classified as a "Violent Felony Offender of Special Concern." On February 28, 2017, police officers, including Deputy Jason Popovich, attempted to arrest Redding at an apartment complex. Redding did not comply with the officers' commands and instead started shooting, injuring one officer. He fled, dropping his gun during the chase. Eventually, Redding was shot multiple times and fell to the ground. As officers, including Popovich, approached him, Redding made a sudden movement, prompting Popovich to shoot him twice in the head, resulting in Redding's death.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of Popovich on qualified immunity grounds. The court found that while there was a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Popovich's use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, Franklin, representing Redding's estate, failed to show that Popovich violated clearly established law. The court concluded that a reasonable officer could believe Redding's sudden movement was an attempt to fight back, distinguishing the case from precedents cited by Franklin.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of fact that Popovich did not know Redding was unarmed. Given the severity of Redding's crimes, his recent shootout with police, and his sudden movement, a reasonable officer could have believed Redding posed a threat. Therefore, Popovich's use of deadly force did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and Franklin failed to show that Popovich's actions violated clearly established law. Consequently, Popovich was entitled to qualified immunity. View "Franklin v. Popovich" on Justia Law

The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) sued Union County, Arkansas, and various officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. HRDC claimed that the defendants refused to accept publications mailed to detainees, which infringed on their rights. The Union County Detention Center had a policy limiting incoming mail to postcards only, aimed at reducing contraband and conserving staff resources. This policy did not apply to inmates in a work-release program. HRDC's mailings were often returned or not returned at all, prompting the lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas oversaw the initial trial. HRDC presented testimony from its executive director, the sheriff, the jail administrator, and an expert on jail administration. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the defendants on one claim, and the jury found in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims. HRDC's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law were denied, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that even if publishers have a First Amendment interest in sending unsolicited communications to prisoners, HRDC did not demonstrate a constitutional violation. The postcard-only policy was deemed rationally related to legitimate penological objectives, such as reducing contraband and promoting institutional efficiency. The court also found that HRDC had alternative means of communication through electronic materials available on kiosks and tablets. Additionally, the court concluded that HRDC was not entitled to additional due process for rejected mailings, as the organization was aware of the postcard-only policy. The district court's judgment was affirmed. View "Human Rights Defense Center v. Union County, Arkansas" on Justia Law

Eva Mae Givens applied for Medicaid assistance in Washington, D.C., but the District miscalculated her copay, requiring her to pay an extra $2,000 per month. Givens requested an administrative hearing to contest the miscalculation, but D.C. did not provide a timely hearing as required by federal law. Givens then filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief for a fair hearing and monetary damages for the overpayments. While the case was pending, D.C. held a hearing, corrected the miscalculation, and sent back-payments to the nursing homes, but not to Givens. Givens passed away shortly after the hearing.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case with prejudice, ruling that the claims were moot because D.C. had provided the hearing and corrected the miscalculation. The court also held that Givens failed to state a claim for relief. Givens' children, who sought to be substituted as plaintiffs, appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the dismissal of the fair-hearing claims as moot but noted that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. The court found that the calculation claim was not moot because Givens had not received compensation for the overpayments she made. However, the court held that the calculation claim failed to plausibly allege a violation of federal rights under § 1983, as Givens did not identify a specific municipal policy or custom that caused the miscalculation.The appellate court vacated the district court's order dismissing the case with prejudice and remanded the case. The district court was instructed to dismiss the moot fair-hearing claims without prejudice and to either dismiss the calculation claim without prejudice or provide a detailed explanation for a dismissal with prejudice. View "Givens v. Bowser" on Justia Law

A juvenile was indicted as a youthful offender for unarmed carjacking, unarmed assault with intent to rob, and assault and battery on an elder. The charges stemmed from an incident where the juvenile, after escaping from a secure facility, attacked an elderly man and stole his car. The juvenile pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in a house of correction followed by five years of probation.The Juvenile Court initially sentenced the juvenile to a house of correction, but after multiple probation violations, including missing appointments and being involved in new offenses, the court sentenced him to State prison. The juvenile appealed the sentence, arguing it was unlawful and that the judge did not adequately consider his well-being and the impact of recent literature on juvenile brain development.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile's sentence was lawful under G. L. c. 119, § 58, which allows for adult sentences, including State prison, for youthful offenders. The court determined that the Juvenile Court judge had appropriately considered the juvenile's criminal history, noncompliance with probation, and the need for public safety. The court also concluded that the judge did not need to make specific written findings on the impact of juvenile brain development literature.Additionally, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Appellate Division of the Superior Court is authorized to review sentences to State prison imposed by the Juvenile Court on youthful offenders. This ensures that youthful offenders have the same procedural safeguards as adult criminal defendants. The court affirmed the juvenile's sentence and allowed for the appeal to the Appellate Division. View "Commonwealth v. Y." on Justia Law