Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case, the petitioner was convicted by a jury in New Hampshire state court for the first-degree murder of Larry Lemieux. The petitioner admitted to shooting Lemieux but claimed he acted in self-defense or in defense of another, arguing he did not act with premeditation. After his conviction, the prosecution disclosed a proffer letter recommending a suspended sentence for drug charges against Jose Gomez, a key prosecution witness. The petitioner argued that the failure to disclose this letter violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland.The state trial court denied the petitioner's motion for a new trial, finding that the nondisclosure of the proffer letter did not prejudice the petitioner. The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner was not prejudiced under New Hampshire law, which sets stricter standards than Brady. The court found that the undisclosed evidence would not have altered the defense strategy or the trial's outcome, given the overwhelming additional evidence of premeditation presented by other witnesses.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The First Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief, concluding that the New Hampshire Supreme Court reasonably determined that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the nondisclosure of the proffer letter. The court noted the overwhelming evidence of premeditation from multiple witnesses, which supported the jury's verdict independent of Gomez's testimony. View "Etienne v. Edmark" on Justia Law

Louis Mercado was charged with three counts of capital sexual battery in Florida. During his trial, the court granted judgments of acquittal on two counts and declared a mistrial on the third count due to prosecutorial error. The trial court then barred a retrial, citing the Double Jeopardy Clause. The State appealed this decision, but Mercado's attorney, mistakenly believing he had withdrawn from the case, failed to file a response brief. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, leading to Mercado's retrial, conviction, and life sentence.The Fifth District Court of Appeal summarily denied Mercado's state habeas petition, in which he argued ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to file a response brief. Mercado contended that this failure should be presumed prejudicial under United States v. Cronic, rather than requiring proof of prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. The appellate court's decision was based on the reasoning that the failure to file a brief did not constitute a complete denial of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Mercado's federal habeas petition. The court held that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The Eleventh Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has never applied the Cronic presumption of prejudice to a situation where counsel failed to file an appellee's brief. Therefore, the state court's requirement for Mercado to prove actual prejudice under Strickland was deemed reasonable. View "Mercado v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Fred Watson filed a lawsuit against Officer Eddie Boyd III and the City of Ferguson, Missouri, alleging violations of his civil rights following a police interaction at a park. Watson claimed unlawful search and seizure, unlawful retaliation, and malicious prosecution against Officer Boyd, and a municipal liability claim against the City. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts, leading Watson to appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri initially denied qualified immunity to Officer Boyd on several claims but granted it on the malicious prosecution claim. The court also denied the City’s motion for summary judgment on most Monell claims but granted it on the inadequate training claim. On interlocutory appeal, the Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further analysis. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on Watson’s Fourth Amendment claims, finding that Officer Boyd had at least arguable probable cause for the traffic-related offenses and that the search of Watson’s vehicle was lawful as a search incident to arrest. However, the court found that the district court erred in not addressing Watson’s First Amendment retaliatory use-of-force claim. The Eighth Circuit held that Watson presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on this claim, noting that Officer Boyd’s actions could be seen as retaliatory for Watson’s request for his name and badge number.The court also reversed the district court’s summary judgment on Watson’s Monell claim against the City, as a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Officer Boyd’s retaliatory use of force. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the First Amendment retaliatory use-of-force claim. View "Watson v. Boyd" on Justia Law

The appellant, a federal prisoner serving a twenty-two-year sentence, has a history of filing numerous lawsuits regarding his prison conditions. In this case, he sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) despite having three prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. He claimed imminent danger of serious physical injury due to worsening glaucoma and alleged that prison officials denied him necessary medical treatment and incited other inmates to assault him.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied his motion to proceed IFP, finding that he did not demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court dismissed his case without prejudice. The appellant then appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court disagreed with the District Court's assessment regarding the appellant's glaucoma, finding that the appellant's allegations of being denied necessary medical treatment for his worsening glaucoma did place him under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Consequently, the court granted the appellant's motion to proceed IFP and reversed the District Court's denial of his motion, allowing his complaint to be docketed.However, the court also found that some of the appellant's claims were frivolous, particularly those against high-ranking officials such as the United States Attorney General and members of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. These claims were dismissed under the PLRA's mandate to dismiss frivolous claims. The court's decision allowed the appellant to proceed with his claims related to his medical treatment and alleged assaults but dismissed the frivolous claims against the aforementioned officials. View "Owlfeather-Gorbey v. Avery" on Justia Law

A property developer settled claims with the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and sought to assert a state-law claim for contribution against other companies involved in developing the properties. The developer, Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C., alleged that the franchisees, including Wilcox Development Group, L.L.C., failed to comply with the FHA in their construction and design of certain properties.The trial court dismissed the case, not on the grounds argued by Wilcox, but on the theory that if a state-law cause of action for contribution existed, it was preempted by federal law. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, and Epcon appealed the preemption issue to the Supreme Court of Ohio.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and determined that the trial court erred in deciding the case on the basis of federal preemption. The court emphasized principles of judicial restraint, noting that no party had argued for federal preemption and that courts should avoid deciding constitutional questions unless necessary. The court also highlighted that the preemption issue was hypothetical and should not have been addressed without first determining whether a state-law contribution claim was available.The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether the facts alleged present a claim for relief under Ohio law. The court did not address the preemption issue, as it was not properly presented by the parties and was unnecessary to resolve at this stage. View "Epcon Communities Franchising, L.L.C. v. Wilcox Dev. Group, L.L.C." on Justia Law

L.C. Slaughter and Isiac Jackson were removed from their positions as commissioners of the Canton Municipal Utilities Commission by the City of Canton Board of Aldermen. They appealed their removal to the Madison County Circuit Court, arguing that their removal was illegal and violated their due process rights. The circuit court agreed, finding the removal void as a matter of law, and reinstated them to their positions. The Board appealed this decision.The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the Board's removal of Slaughter and Jackson without notice and an opportunity to be heard was improper. The Court issued its mandate on April 6, 2023, affirming their reinstatement. Subsequently, on April 27, 2023, Slaughter and Jackson filed a petition for back pay in the same circuit court case, seeking compensation for the period they were removed.The circuit court denied the petition for back pay, citing lack of jurisdiction, as the issue of back pay was not raised before the mandate was issued. Slaughter and Jackson appealed this denial. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and held that the circuit court lost jurisdiction once the appeal was filed and did not regain it after the Supreme Court's mandate, which did not remand any issues for further consideration. Consequently, the circuit court's denial of the petition for back pay was affirmed. View "Slaughter v. City of Canton, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Carter K. was scheduled to be released from jail in October 2022 when a mental health professional filed a petition for his hospitalization for evaluation. The superior court granted the petition, and Carter was transported to the Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API). API staff then filed petitions to commit Carter for 30 days of treatment and to administer medication. Carter waived his presence at the hearings, and his attorney appeared on his behalf. The State presented two witnesses: Carter’s primary provider at API, a nurse practitioner, and a court visitor.The nurse practitioner testified that Carter was diagnosed with schizophrenia and exhibited severe psychotic symptoms, including delusions and disorganized communication. He opined that Carter could not meet his basic needs if discharged. The court visitor corroborated this, noting Carter’s inability to make informed decisions about his treatment. The superior court master recommended Carter’s commitment for 30 days, finding him gravely disabled and unable to function independently. The master also recommended the administration of three medications: olanzapine, lorazepam, and diphenhydramine.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. Carter argued that the superior court erred in finding him gravely disabled and in approving the involuntary administration of medication. The Supreme Court held that the superior court did not plainly err in finding Carter gravely disabled, as the nurse practitioner’s uncontested testimony supported this conclusion. The court also found no less restrictive alternative to commitment was available, as outpatient treatment would not meet Carter’s needs.However, the Supreme Court found plain error in the order for the involuntary administration of lorazepam, as the superior court did not adequately consider the required factors to determine if it was in Carter’s best interests and if no less intrusive treatment was available. The commitment order and the medication order for olanzapine were affirmed, but the order for lorazepam was vacated. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of: Carter K." on Justia Law

In January 2015, Sarah Schoper, a tenure-track assistant professor at Western Illinois University, suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in high-functioning mild aphasia and other physical disabilities. Despite her condition, she returned to teaching in May 2015, with accommodations from the University. Schoper applied for tenure in 2017 but was denied based on her teaching evaluations, which had declined post-injury. She then filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment in favor of the University. The court found that Schoper could not prove that her disability was the but-for cause of her negative tenure recommendation. Additionally, the court ruled that Schoper failed to show how her requested accommodation—additional time to meet tenure criteria—would enable her to perform the essential functions of her job.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Schoper was not a qualified individual under the ADA because her teaching evaluations did not meet the University's tenure requirements. The court also found that her request for more time to achieve tenure was not a reasonable accommodation, as it essentially sought a second chance rather than a modification to enable her to perform her job. Furthermore, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Schoper's disability was the but-for cause of the University's decision to deny her tenure, given the multiple layers of review and the lack of evidence showing discriminatory intent by the reviewers. View "Schoper v. Board of Trustees of Western Illinois University" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a defaced firearm and unlawfully possessing a loaded firearm outside of his home or place of business. Before the trial, the prosecution filed a Sandoval application to cross-examine the defendant about his prior convictions and pending cases. The trial court held an in-camera conference on this motion without the defendant present. Later, in the defendant's presence, the court announced its decision on the Sandoval application without hearing arguments on the merits or confirming the defendant's understanding.The case proceeded to a bench trial where the prosecution presented evidence, including testimony from an arresting officer and surveillance footage. The trial court found the defendant guilty on both counts and sentenced him to imprisonment and post-release supervision. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with one Justice dissenting on the grounds that the defendant was denied his right to be present during the Sandoval application consideration. The dissenting Justice granted the defendant leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the defendant's right to be present during a material stage of his prosecution was violated. The court found that the defendant had a right to be present at the initial in-chambers conference on the Sandoval application and that the subsequent in-court proceeding did not cure this violation. The court emphasized that the defendant's presence is crucial for meaningful participation in such hearings. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted the defendant a new trial. View "People v Sharp" on Justia Law

The case involves Roberto Cruz, who was convicted of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen. The incidents occurred when Cruz, nearly sixty years old, hugged and kissed a thirteen-year-old girl, Jane, without her consent. Cruz was also charged with child enticement and simple assault and battery, but the latter charge was dismissed by the Commonwealth before the trial. The jury acquitted Cruz of child enticement and one count of indecent assault and battery but convicted him of the other two counts.Cruz appealed his convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the assaults were indecent. The Massachusetts Appeals Court agreed, reversing his convictions on the grounds that the conduct did not meet the statutory definition of indecent assault and battery. Following this reversal, Cruz filed a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for wrongful conviction under G. L. c. 258D. The Commonwealth moved for summary judgment, arguing that the reversal did not establish Cruz's innocence of the simple assault and battery charge, which had been dismissed earlier.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the eligibility for compensation under G. L. c. 258D is limited to felony convictions and does not include misdemeanors like simple assault and battery. Therefore, the court affirmed the Superior Court's denial of the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court concluded that Cruz met the eligibility requirements for compensation as the reversal of his felony convictions tended to establish his innocence of those charges. View "Cruz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law