Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered an appeal by several Missouri public officials who were denied qualified immunity by a lower court regarding five claims arising from a murder prosecution. The murder case, involving Donald Nash who was eventually convicted for the murder of Judy Spencer, was reopened in 2007, 25 years after the crime occurred. The officials based their case on a theory that DNA evidence found under Spencer's fingernails belonged to Nash, which they asserted could not have remained present if Spencer had washed her hair after their last encounter.Nash was convicted and spent 11 years in prison until the Missouri Supreme Court set aside his conviction in 2020. The charges were dismissed after DNA testing on the shoelace used to strangle Spencer supported Nash’s noninvolvement. Nash and his wife filed a lawsuit against the officials, claiming violations of rights including unlawful arrest and detention, fabrication of evidence, failure to investigate, violations of rights of access to courts, and violation of the right to familial and marital associations.The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part the appeals on the denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim of unlawful arrest and detention, finding that the omission of certain exculpatory facts from the probable cause affidavit negated probable cause for Nash's arrest. However, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the claim alleging violation of the right to familial and marital associations, as this was not a clearly established constitutional right in 2008. The court dismissed the officials' appeal on the remaining claims due to lack of jurisdiction, as these involved genuine disputes of material fact to be resolved by a jury. View "Estate of Nash v. Folsom" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs Mark Bambach and his minor children sued defendants Gina Moegle and Susan Shaw, employees of Michigan's Children’s Protective Services, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that Moegle and Shaw violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by removing the children from Bambach's custody without a warrant and failing to return them after Bambach revoked his consent for the children to stay with their mother during an investigation into allegations of child abuse. The court found that no clearly established law put the state defendants on notice that they were violating the Bambach's Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment rights. The court determined that the key factual dispute underpinning the remaining claims was whether Bambach’s children were removed from his custody without his consent from December 29, 2015, to January 14, 2016. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Bambach had revoked his consent to his children’s placement with their mother by expressing to Moegle that he wanted to see his children and wanted to know when they would be back. But the court did not assess whether those constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the violations. The court found that Moegle and Shaw were entitled to qualified immunity as they could not have been on notice that their actions were unconstitutional. The court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment and remanded for entry of an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants. View "Bambach v. Moegle" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of Arkansas, defendant Robert J. Williams, Jr. appealed his conviction for capital murder and aggravated assault. Williams argued that the trial court erred in granting the State's motion for continuance, violated his rights to a speedy trial, and improperly denied his Batson challenge during jury selection. The Supreme Court of Arkansas disagreed and affirmed the lower court's decision.On the issue of the continuance, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's motion for continuance. The court found that the State acted with due diligence and the affidavit submitted by the State substantially complied with the requirements set forth by law.On the issue of speedy trial, the court conducted a de novo review to determine whether specific periods of time were excludable under the speedy-trial rules. The court found that Williams was brought to trial within the twelve-month period required by the rules. Therefore, the court held that Williams's right to a speedy trial was not violated.Finally, on the issue of the Batson challenge, the court held that the trial court properly allowed the State to strike a juror based on a race-neutral reason, that is, the juror's lack of involvement in the judicial process. The court deferred to the trial court's ability to gauge the State's demeanor and credibility, finding no error in the denial of the Batson challenge.Therefore, the court affirmed the decisions of the lower court, finding no prejudicial error. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

In Pennsylvania, four family members, including two elderly parents, were injured during a pre-dawn, no-knock raid by the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT) of the Pennsylvania State Police. The police acted on information about alleged drug sales by a family member, but none of the four injured individuals were suspected of any wrongdoing. They sued the officers for excessive use of force, but the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision. The court found that the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable as they had used substantial force against individuals who were unarmed, cooperative, outnumbered by law enforcement, not suspected of wrongdoing, and in their own home. Furthermore, the court held that the right to be free from such excessive force was clearly established at the time of the officers' conduct, and that any reasonable officer would have known that their actions were unlawful. Hence, the court concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. View "Anglemeyer v. Ammons" on Justia Law

In this case, Larry Donnell Gibbs, a pro se plaintiff, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against five officers of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He alleged that two officers allowed him to bleed for 45 minutes after being stabbed by another inmate, and three other officers used excessive force against him in retaliation for filing a grievance about the incident. Gibbs attempted to proceed in forma pauperis, which would have allowed service to be made by a United States marshal, but the district court denied this on the basis that he had already paid the filing fee, had sufficient funds in his inmate trust account to serve the defendants, and had not provided the addresses of the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the district court had abused its discretion by denying Gibbs's in forma pauperis status. It held that a person who is not a pauper at the commencement of a suit may become one during or prior to its prosecution. The court also found that the district court had arbitrarily determined that the funds in Gibbs's inmate trust account were sufficient for him to serve the defendants and that there's no requirement for an individual to be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit of in forma pauperis status. The court also held that a district court's determination of whether a party may proceed in forma pauperis must be based solely upon economic criteria and not on the lack of addresses for the defendants. The court concluded that the denial of Gibbs's in forma pauperis status had prejudiced his chances of effecting service. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to permit Gibbs to proceed in forma pauperis. View "Gibbs v. Jackson" on Justia Law

In a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, plaintiffs Jennifer Dupree and Detrich Battle challenged the dismissal of their Title V claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on the basis of sovereign immunity. Dupree, who worked for the Georgia Department of Human Services, and Battle, an employee of the Georgia Department of Corrections, had requested accommodations at their respective workplaces due to their health conditions. After their requests were denied and their employment terminated, they filed claims under Title V, alleging retaliation.The court, however, found that sovereign immunity applies to Title V claims when brought in conjunction with Title I claims. This meant that the plaintiffs' claims could not proceed. Importantly, the court clarified that dismissals based on sovereign immunity, a jurisdictional issue, should be entered without prejudice. Not specifying this in the dismissal could lead to misunderstandings about the nature of the dismissal. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to dismiss the case without prejudice. View "Dupree v. Owens" on Justia Law

In 2003, Terry Harper and Emmanuel Ruiz were convicted by a jury of murder and related charges connected to the shooting deaths of Joe Luhrman, David Carty, and Tracy Glover in 2001. Harper appealed his conviction, arguing that his right to due process was violated due to the almost 20-year delay between his conviction and his direct appeal, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial after the State referenced a response he gave to police questioning that he contends was previously excluded and prejudicial, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial attorneys failed to obtain and introduce evidence that he was suffering a severe injury to his dominant hand at the time of the shootings.The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the trial court's decision. The court applied the four-part balancing test from Barker v. Wingo to Harper's claim of a due process violation due to the delayed appeal. Although the court found that the delay was lengthy and Harper consistently asserted his right to appeal, it ultimately held that Harper failed to show actual prejudice from the delay. Regarding the mistrial motion, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as the jury was given prompt curative instructions, and the prosecutor acted in good faith. Lastly, the court denied Harper's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as he failed to show a reasonable probability that the result of his trial would have been different if his medical records were introduced into evidence. View "HARPER v. STATE" on Justia Law

This case before the Indiana Supreme Court involved the intersection of a successful Section 1983 federal action and Indiana’s public-employee indemnification statute. The plaintiff, Kailee Leonard, hit and killed a dog belonging to a state conservation officer, Scott Johnson. In response, Officer Johnson pursued misdemeanor charges against Leonard for leaving the scene of the accident. Leonard was subsequently charged but never arrested, and the charges were later dropped at Officer Johnson's request. Leonard then filed a federal lawsuit against Officer Johnson, claiming false arrest. The jury found in Leonard's favor, awarding her $10,000 in damages and $52,462 in attorney’s fees and costs. Unable to pay the full amount, Officer Johnson assigned his indemnification rights against the State to Leonard and her attorney. Leonard subsequently sued the State for a declaratory judgment that the State had a duty to indemnify Officer Johnson and pay the judgment. The trial court found in Leonard's favor, but the State appealed, arguing that Officer Johnson's actions constituted a criminal act.The Indiana Supreme Court held that Leonard had shown that Officer Johnson’s conduct was noncriminal, and the State did not rebut that showing. The Court clarified that a party seeking indemnification under the Indiana public-employee indemnification statute must initially show that the loss occurred because of a noncriminal act or omission. The burden then shifts to the State to rebut that showing by producing evidence establishing a prima facie case of criminal conduct. In this case, Leonard met her burden of producing evidence that Officer Johnson’s conduct was noncriminal, and the State failed to establish a prima facie case that he had committed the crime of false informing. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's decision ordering the State to indemnify Officer Johnson and pay the federal judgment. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, two New Jersey parents sued various school and law enforcement officials, alleging that their First Amendment rights were violated when they were punished for refusing to wear masks at school board meetings. George Falcone was issued a summons and Gwyneth Murray-Nolan was arrested. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Falcone had standing to sue because his alleged injuries were directly traceable to the defendants who allegedly conspired to violate his First Amendment right to engage in political and symbolic speech. The court reversed and remanded the lower court's order dismissing Falcone's complaint for lack of standing.However, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Murray-Nolan's complaint. The court held that refusing to wear a mask is not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Further, Murray-Nolan's retaliation claim failed because the police had probable cause to arrest her and she did not link her constitutionally protected speech activities (such as her social media posts) to any of the defendants' allegedly retaliatory actions. View "Falcone v. Dickstein" on Justia Law

In 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that the defendant, Oscar Manuel Vaquera, did not receive fair notice of the sentence that the prosecution was seeking in his case, which violated his right to due process. Vaquera was charged with two counts of a sex offense covered by California's "One Strike" law and was convicted on both counts. In the habeas corpus proceeding, Vaquera challenged the 25-year-to-life sentence the trial court imposed for the second count.The prosecution had initially requested a sentence of 15 years to life for the second count, but later argued for a 25-year-to-life sentence under a different provision of the One Strike law. Vaquera contended that the imposition of the 25-year-to-life sentence violated due process because he did not receive fair notice that the prosecution intended to seek that sentence. The California Supreme Court agreed with Vaquera and ordered the trial court to resentence him to 15 years to life for the second count.The Court ruled that the One Strike allegation in Vaquera's case did not provide him with fair notice that the prosecution was seeking a 25-year-to-life sentence under the specific provision of the law based on the victim's age. The Court held that due process requires an accusatory pleading to inform the defendant of the particular One Strike sentence the prosecution is seeking and of the factual basis it intends to prove to support that sentence. In this case, the prosecution did not provide fair notice of its intent to seek the longer One Strike sentence, which violated Vaquera's due process rights. View "In re Vaquera" on Justia Law