Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A police officer with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., was involved in two separate incidents within five days, during which he used neck restraints—specifically, trachea and carotid artery holds—on two individuals while on duty. Both incidents occurred at McDonald’s restaurants, and in each case, the officer initiated physical contact and applied prohibited neck restraints, despite the individuals not posing an immediate threat or actively resisting arrest. The officer was aware that such holds were forbidden by department policy, and in one instance, had been warned about his conduct just days before repeating it.A grand jury indicted the officer on five charges related to these events. Before trial, three charges were dropped. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia conducted a jury trial, after which the officer was convicted on two counts of depriving individuals of their rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. The jury found that the officer acted willfully, used excessive force, and caused bodily injury. The court sentenced him to concurrent six-month prison terms and supervised release. The officer moved for acquittal and a new trial, arguing, among other things, that the jury instructions on willfulness were improper and that the evidence was insufficient. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the officer’s challenges. The court held that the jury instructions on willfulness were not plainly erroneous, as precedent allows conviction under § 242 for conduct done in reckless disregard of constitutional rights. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings of excessive force and willfulness, and that no impermissible amendment or variance of the indictment occurred. The appellate court affirmed the District Court’s evidentiary rulings and the officer’s convictions. View "USA v. Clark" on Justia Law

An inmate at a Wisconsin correctional institution was attacked by another prisoner, resulting in serious injury. The inmate alleged that prison officials were aware of the risk of such an attack but failed to take preventive action. After the incident, medical staff did not arrange for the inmate to see a specialist within the recommended timeframe. The inmate claimed to have filed a formal complaint about both the lack of protection and inadequate medical care by placing a completed complaint form in his cell door for collection on January 2, 2017. He did not receive an acknowledgment of receipt and, after inquiring with a complaint examiner a month later, was told no complaint had been received. He then filed a new complaint, referencing his earlier attempt and supporting it with a journal entry and correspondence to other inmates.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court relied on the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Lockett v. Bonson, finding that the inmate’s evidence was insufficient to show timely filing and that he should have followed up sooner when he did not receive an acknowledgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court found that, unlike in Lockett, the inmate provided more than a mere assertion of timely filing, including a sworn declaration, a journal entry, and references in subsequent complaints. The court held that this evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether a timely complaint was filed. The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to determine whether the exhaustion issue is intertwined with the merits, which could entitle the parties to a jury trial under Perttu v. Richards. View "Breyley v. Fuchs" on Justia Law

In 2006, an individual was civilly committed to the North Dakota State Hospital as a sexually dangerous person. Over the years, he repeatedly sought discharge from commitment, with several applications denied and those denials affirmed on appeal. In July 2024, he again applied for discharge. The State’s expert, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified at a review hearing, while the individual’s independent examiner did not testify. The individual’s girlfriend, a former hospital employee, also testified. The district court found that the individual’s antisocial personality disorder and history of sexually predatory conduct made him likely to reoffend, and concluded he would have serious difficulty controlling his sexual behavior if released. The court ordered continued commitment in January 2025.The individual appealed the district court’s order to the North Dakota Supreme Court, arguing that the court erred in finding clear and convincing evidence that he has serious difficulty controlling his behavior. He did not challenge the court’s findings on the statutory elements required for civil commitment, but contended that the court’s findings on his ability to control his behavior were conclusory and unsupported by specific evidence. While the appeal was pending, he filed another application for discharge, but the Supreme Court’s review was limited to the January 2025 order.The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the district court failed to make sufficiently specific findings of fact regarding whether the individual has serious difficulty controlling his behavior, as required by substantive due process and precedent. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further specific findings on this issue, unless the pending application for discharge renders the matter moot. View "Interest of Hoff" on Justia Law

An Arab American faculty member began working at a university as an adjunct instructor and later held a term faculty position. In April 2017, he and another faculty member were informed that their contracts would not be renewed due to budget constraints. Around the same time, the university received a letter from an attorney alleging that the faculty member had engaged in repeated acts of sexual misconduct with a student. The university’s Title IX coordinator initiated an investigation, during which the faculty member admitted to a sexual relationship with the student but claimed it was consensual and began after she was no longer his student. The student did not participate in the investigation, and the coordinator found insufficient evidence of misconduct. The department chair and the faculty member discussed his possible reappointment as an adjunct, but after the student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and other misconduct, the university decided not to hire him as an adjunct, citing low course enrollment, his compensation request, and the lawsuit. A second investigation was launched, and this time the coordinator found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the faculty member had sexually harassed the student. The university then deemed him ineligible for future employment.The faculty member sued the university and two former employees in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, among other claims. The district court dismissed his other claims and granted summary judgment to the university on the § 1981 claim, finding that the university had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that the faculty member had not shown these reasons were pretext for racial discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Seventh Circuit held that the faculty member failed to present evidence that the university’s stated reasons for its employment decisions were pretext for racial discrimination. View "Saud v DePaul University" on Justia Law

Jose Montanez, an inmate in Pennsylvania state prisons, experienced sudden paralysis and incontinence while incarcerated at SCI-Huntingdon. After collapsing in his cell, he was taken to the medical unit but received minimal assistance and was denied hospital care. He was left in his cell, unable to walk or reach the toilet, for three days before receiving an MRI that revealed spinal cord stenosis and edema, necessitating surgery. Following surgery and a brief rehabilitation, Montanez was returned to prison, where he suffered a fall and herniated a disc. He alleged that prison medical staff denied him adequate pain medication and accommodations for his disabilities, such as a double mattress, mobility aids, and access to physical therapy.Montanez filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its employees, Wellpath Care LLC (a private medical contractor), and Wellpath employees. The District Court dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding the complaint insufficient to state a claim and denying leave to amend, citing futility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Montanez’s complaint, liberally construed, stated viable Eighth Amendment claims against certain individual defendants (Dr. Mahli, Nurse Wagman, and Administrator Ellers), a Section 504 RA claim against Wellpath, and ADA and RA claims against the Commonwealth. The court found that the District Court erred in dismissing these claims and in denying leave to amend for other claims, as amendment would not be futile. The Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to allow Montanez to amend his complaint. View "Montanez v. Price" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, who is civilly committed as a sexually violent predator at the Texas Civil Commitment Center, brought a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Commissioner of the Texas Department of Family Protective Services and the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. He alleged that these agencies failed to investigate his reports of misconduct and abuse at the facility, claiming violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process, as well as rights under the Bill of Rights for Mental Health Patients. The plaintiff asserted that he should be able to file complaints with these agencies rather than being required to use the internal grievance procedure of the Texas Civil Commitment Office.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because the plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis. The district court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief and that amendment would be futile, so it dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that he had adequately stated equal protection and due process claims, that he should have been allowed to amend his complaint, and that the district court was biased.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the plaintiff failed to state an equal protection claim because he was not similarly situated to other Texas citizens and the different grievance procedures had a rational basis. The court also found no protected liberty or property interest to support a due process claim and concluded that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation. The court further held that amendment would have been futile and found no evidence of judicial bias. The plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel was denied. View "Dunsmore v. Muth" on Justia Law

T.W. was the subject of two involuntary commitment petitions filed by the State of Montana in August 2022. The first petition was based on reports that T.W. was suffering from severe psychosis, including paranoid delusions, hallucinations, suicidal ideations, and self-starvation, which rendered her unable to meet her basic needs and posed a threat to herself and others. At the jury trial for the first petition, T.W. waived her right to be present due to emotional distress and was permitted to observe the proceedings remotely with her video and audio off. The jury found that T.W. suffered from a mental disorder but did not require commitment, and the District Court dismissed the petition.Shortly after her release, T.W. experienced further mental health crises, including a 911 call and subsequent hospitalization, which led the State to file a second, nearly identical commitment petition. T.W. moved to dismiss the second petition, arguing it was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, as it relied on evidence similar to that presented in the first trial. The Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court denied the motion, finding that the second petition was based on new events and that preclusion doctrines did not apply. At the second trial, T.W. again sought to waive her presence and requested to observe the proceedings remotely with her video and audio off, but the court required her to appear via two-way audio-video with both on, over her objection.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the State’s second commitment petition was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, as the issues and evidence were sufficiently distinct and the statutory scheme allows for subsequent petitions when new facts arise. However, the Court found that the District Court erred by compelling T.W.’s remote appearance over her valid waiver and objection, violating her statutory and constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, vacating the commitment order. View "In re T.W." on Justia Law

Amy Hadley’s home in South Bend, Indiana, was significantly damaged when law enforcement officers executed a search warrant in pursuit of a murder suspect they believed was inside her residence. The officers, acting on information that the suspect had accessed his Facebook account from Hadley’s IP address, obtained a warrant and forcefully entered the home, causing extensive property damage, including the use of tear gas and destruction of personal items. Hadley, who had no connection to the suspect, was denied compensation by both the City of South Bend and St. Joseph County for the $16,000 in damages.After her request for compensation was denied, Hadley filed suit in Indiana state court, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically invoking the Takings Clause. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Seventh Circuit precedent, particularly Johnson v. Manitowoc County, foreclosed her claim. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint, finding that the Takings Clause did not entitle her to compensation for property damage resulting from the execution of a lawful search warrant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that, under its precedent in Johnson v. Manitowoc County, the Fifth Amendment does not require the government to compensate property owners for damage caused by law enforcement executing a valid search warrant. The court declined to overrule Johnson and found that Hadley’s arguments did not warrant revisiting the established rule. View "Hadley v. City of South Bend" on Justia Law

Marian Hudak was charged with two federal hate crimes after separate assaults on two men in North Carolina. The first victim, J.D., was a Mexican-American neighbor whom Hudak had repeatedly harassed with racial slurs and threats, culminating in a physical attack. The second victim, J.S., was a Black man whom Hudak confronted in traffic, using racial epithets and threats, and physically attacked his vehicle before chasing him to his apartment complex and threatening further violence. Evidence showed Hudak possessed Nazi and Ku Klux Klan memorabilia and had a history of expressing racist views.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina presided over Hudak’s trial. The government presented evidence of Hudak’s racist motives, including testimony about his Nazi memorabilia and prior racist conduct. Hudak conceded intent to injure and intimidate but argued his actions were due to road rage and mental illness, not racial animus. The district court excluded expert testimony about Hudak’s mental illness, finding it unreliable and irrelevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Insanity Defense Reform Act, since Hudak did not plead insanity. The court also admitted evidence of Nazi memorabilia after Hudak testified about his interest in military history, determining he had “opened the door” to its relevance.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court properly excluded the mental health evidence and correctly admitted the Nazi memorabilia after Hudak’s own testimony. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict, holding that the government only needed to prove the victims’ race or national origin was a but-for cause of the assaults, and that Hudak received a fair trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "United States v. Hudak" on Justia Law

A black man was hired as the first black city manager of a Texas city and led several major development initiatives. His tenure became contentious, especially after two new city council members, who opposed his policies, were elected. The conflict allegedly took on a racial character, and the city manager reported race-based discrimination. Eventually, the city council voted to part ways with him “without cause,” entering into a separation agreement that included a severance payment and a non-disparagement clause. After his departure, some council members publicly criticized him and later persuaded the council to rescind the separation agreement, citing a legal opinion that it was invalid. The city demanded the return of the severance payment, prompting the former city manager to sue, alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and breach of contract under Texas law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the validity of the separation agreement and denied the city’s motions for judgment as a matter of law. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury found for the plaintiff on both claims, awarding substantial damages. The district court entered judgment accordingly, later suggesting remittitur due to statutory limits on damages for breach of contract, which the plaintiff accepted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiff failed to establish municipal liability for racial discrimination under § 1981 and § 1983 because he could not show that a majority of the city council acted with discriminatory intent, nor could he use the “cat’s paw” theory to impute animus under Monell. However, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment that the separation agreement was valid and enforceable, and that the city breached the contract by attempting to rescind it. The court reversed the judgment on the civil rights claim, affirmed the breach of contract ruling, and remanded for consideration of attorney’s fees. View "Jones v. City of Hutto" on Justia Law