Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

An agent employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervised participants in an Alternatives-to-Detention program, which allowed him significant discretion over their conditions, such as monitoring protocols and the handling of their passports. The agent engaged in sexual relations with multiple women under his supervision, violating agency policy. After one participant reported his behavior, an investigation revealed further evidence of misconduct, including deleted photos and communications. The agent attempted to impede the investigation by providing lenient supervision to a participant in exchange for her silence. One supervisee accused the agent of sexual assault, testifying to repeated coerced encounters.A jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio convicted the agent on several counts, including depriving a person of constitutional rights under color of law, obstructing a sex-trafficking investigation, witness tampering, and destruction of records. The district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison. During trial, the court excused an ill juror during deliberations, which the defendant challenged as an abuse of discretion. He also argued that multiple counts were improperly multiplicitous, raising double jeopardy concerns, and challenged several sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excusing the juror due to medical necessity. The appellate court found no plain error regarding multiplicity, as each contested count required proof of distinct elements or conduct. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancements, finding no error in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement to pre-investigation conduct under the amended Sentencing Guidelines, no impermissible double counting, and no error regarding the sentencing guidelines in relation to statutory maximums. The requirement that the defendant register as a sex offender was also affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence in all respects. View "United States v. Golobic" on Justia Law

Dr. Lana Foster, a lifelong resident of Echols County, Georgia, was among the first Black students and later one of the first Black educators in the county’s school district. Over the years, she experienced various forms of racial discrimination, including being reassigned to a less desirable teaching position and being stripped of leadership duties, which led her to sue the school district. That lawsuit was settled in 2011, with the district agreeing to reinstate her role and pay damages. However, Foster alleged continued racial hostility, culminating in her termination in 2018. Subsequent investigations found no probable cause for her firing based on the cited ethical violations. Foster then filed complaints with state and federal agencies, resulting in another settlement in 2020 that required the district to revise its hiring practices and take additional steps to remedy discrimination.Foster later discovered, through an open records request, that the school district had not complied with the settlement's terms. She filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the district, the school board, and several school officials, alleging violations of her rights under federal and state law, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 for denial of her right to make and enforce contracts based on her race. The district court dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed, including her § 1981 claim against the individual officials, and denied their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity. It held that the law was clearly established that government officials may not interfere with contractual rights because of race. The court concluded that uncertainty about possible personal liability under § 1981 does not entitle officials to qualified immunity. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision denying qualified immunity. View "Foster v. King" on Justia Law

During unrest following the death of George Floyd in May 2020, a large crowd gathered outside the Minneapolis Police Department’s Fifth Precinct after a citywide curfew had been imposed due to ongoing violence and destruction. Raven Bartz joined the crowd, which she characterized as peaceful, though widespread chaos and threats to public safety were documented that night. As police attempted to clear the area, officers deployed various crowd-control measures. Bartz was struck in the head by a projectile fired from a less-lethal launcher by Officer Conan Hickey while fleeing after a blast ball was thrown. She sustained a laceration requiring staples but was released from the hospital without a concussion diagnosis.Bartz filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Officer Hickey and the City of Minneapolis, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, a Monell claim alleging unconstitutional policies or customs, and a state law battery claim. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, finding that even assuming a seizure occurred, Officer Hickey’s actions were reasonable in light of the chaotic and dangerous circumstances. The court found that qualified immunity applied and dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, under the totality of circumstances—including the violence, curfew violations, and threats faced by officers—Officer Hickey’s use of force was objectively reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Without a constitutional violation, the Monell claim failed. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Bartz v. City of Minneapolis" on Justia Law

A vehicle reported stolen was located by police, who discovered Alejandro Flores-Reyes had been driving it and was in possession of its keys. Flores-Reyes stated he had purchased the car and that the items inside belonged to him. Police contacted the registered owner, who consented to a search of the vehicle. The officers, without Flores-Reyes’ consent, conducted a search, manipulated a concealed panel, and found a closed zippered pouch in a hidden compartment. Upon opening the pouch, they found pills suspected to contain fentanyl. The officers then obtained warrants based on this discovery and, during subsequent searches, seized additional narcotics from the vehicle and from Flores-Reyes’ motel room.After initial charges were filed in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, the case was dismissed to allow for federal prosecution, but was later reinstated at the State’s request when the federal case was abandoned. Flores-Reyes moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights and that the subsequent warrants were tainted by the prior unlawful search. The District Court denied the motion, ruling that Flores-Reyes had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as he lacked a legitimate possessory interest, and convicted him of three counts of criminal possession with intent to distribute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana found that the warrantless search of the closed pouch in the concealed compartment exceeded the scope of the owner’s consent because there was no mutual use or joint access to the pouch. The court held that the search violated both the Montana and United States Constitutions. As such, the court reversed the District Court’s order, vacated Flores-Reyes’ convictions, and remanded for suppression of all evidence obtained from the unlawful search and its fruits. View "State v. Flores-Reyes" on Justia Law

Andrew Emmings was subject to a permanent order of protection after repeated contact with a protected party. He was later charged with multiple violations of this order and pled guilty to several counts. While his case was pending, his release was revoked twice for new offenses, and he left Montana without completing required procedures. Emmings subsequently harassed other individuals, including a journalist and a lender, through threatening communications. He was sentenced to a net twelve-year term with ten years suspended, subject to various probation conditions, including restrictions on social media use.After serving his custodial sentence, Emmings was released on probation and later granted conditional discharge from supervision, with the court clarifying the discharge was subject to possible reimposition. Emmings moved to California, and after sending further threats, his conditional discharge was revoked, placing him back on probation. He did not appeal this order. Later, after failing to comply with supervision and communicate with his probation officer, the State petitioned to revoke his suspended sentence. A different district judge dismissed the petition, reasoning that Emmings’ move to California terminated his sentence and that the previous judge’s probation conditions were illegal and amounted to banishment from Montana.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that Judge Halligan’s order reimposing probation became the law of the case when it was not appealed, and Judge Larson abused his discretion in striking it. The court also held that moving out of state under conditional discharge does not terminate the sentence; the sentence remains subject to revocation, and the statutory procedures for termination were not followed. The court further found that Emmings was not banished from Montana and had not shown that probation conditions were impossible to comply with. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and reinstated the prior revocation, remanding for further proceedings. View "State v. Emmings" on Justia Law

During a prolonged standoff in Las Vegas, New Mexico, Alejandro Alirez shot Cristal Cervantes and her grandfather inside their home while livestreaming the incident on Facebook. Law enforcement officers from multiple agencies responded after being alerted that Alirez, believed to be armed and mentally ill, was acting erratically at the residence. Upon the deputies’ arrival and their attempt to make contact, gunshots were fired almost immediately, with Cristal and her grandfather ultimately killed during the ordeal. Law enforcement officers established a perimeter and called for tactical support, but Cristal was found unresponsive after Alirez surrendered hours later.The plaintiffs, including Cristal’s personal representative and her mother, brought suit against various law enforcement agencies and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New Mexico state law, alleging failure to intervene and negligence. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that qualified immunity barred the § 1983 claims and that the plaintiffs could not prevail on their state-law claims, including negligent investigation, negligent training, and loss of consortium.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Tenth Circuit held that the law enforcement officers did not affirmatively act to create or increase the danger to Cristal, a necessary element for liability under the substantive due process “danger-creation” exception, and thus the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the court found that the officers’ inability to intervene was caused by the immediate deadly threat posed by Alirez, precluding liability under New Mexico law for negligent investigation or related torts. The disposition of the case was affirmed in favor of the defendants. View "Salcido v. City of Las Vegas" on Justia Law

An inmate at Western Illinois Correctional Center experienced severe tooth pain and repeatedly requested dental care from prison medical staff. After being examined by the facility’s medical director, he was referred to the prison dentist, who identified a hole in a tooth but declined to provide dental cleaning, stating such services were not offered at the facility. Instead, the dentist scheduled a tooth extraction. The dental assistant also informed the inmate that cleanings and mouthwash were not available to prisoners. The inmate submitted a formal grievance complaining of ongoing dental issues and failure to receive adequate treatment, requesting dental fillings, specialist referral, and cleaning.After the inmate’s grievance was reviewed, a counselor replied, and a grievance officer found the issue moot because the extraction was rescheduled. This recommendation was approved by the Chief Administrative Officer. Dissatisfied, the inmate appealed to the Administrative Review Board, which, with the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections, denied the appeal. Subsequently, the inmate filed a pro se suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging Eighth Amendment violations for deliberate indifference to his serious dental needs. The district court denied class certification and granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the inmate’s grievance provided sufficient notice to prison officials regarding his ongoing inadequate dental care and satisfied the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement. The appellate court reversed the district court’s summary judgment on this issue but affirmed the denial of class certification, concluding that a pro se prisoner could not adequately represent a class. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Boyce v. Cox" on Justia Law

During the summer of 2021, protests occurred at a pipeline construction site in northern Minnesota. On the evening in question, protesters, including Joshua Hollamon, attempted to disrupt operations by locking themselves to a vehicle at the entrance and then trying to breach the security fences surrounding the site. The construction site was protected by two fences topped with barbed wire and marked with “No Trespassing” signs, separated by a berm. As protesters, including Hollamon, climbed the outer fence despite warnings from officers, Sergeant Dustin Miller fired pepperballs at them. Hollamon alleges he was struck multiple times, including on the head. Despite the use of force, Hollamon and the group continued their attempts to breach the inner fence, and he was eventually arrested and charged with trespassing and obstructing the legal process.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Miller and the County of Wright on Hollamon’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, concluding that there was no constitutional violation, or, alternatively, that Sergeant Miller was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Hollamon appealed, arguing the use of pepperballs constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. Assuming without deciding that a seizure occurred, the appellate court held that Sergeant Miller’s use of force was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, given the protesters’ active trespass, refusal to comply with officer commands, and intent to disrupt the site. The court rejected the argument that the use of pepperballs rose to the level of deadly force and distinguished this case from others involving compliant individuals. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Hollamon v. County of Wright" on Justia Law

The plaintiff in this case, while serving a prison sentence, was diagnosed with a serious mental illness. After a period of stability on prescribed antipsychotic medication, his psychiatrist at a correctional facility discontinued the medication upon his refusal and assertion that he did not need it. Over the following weeks, the plaintiff’s mental health deteriorated. He became involved in an altercation with correctional staff, was placed in segregated housing (the Special Housing Unit or SHU), and subsequently subject to further disciplinary housing (“keeplock”). During this time, he experienced hallucinations and anxiety, though he did not report these symptoms to staff. Shortly after his release from custody, the plaintiff, while still suffering from psychosis, committed a violent assault on a family member.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendants, including employees of the Department of Corrections and the Office of Mental Health, finding no triable issue of fact regarding whether defendants were subjectively aware of or disregarded a serious risk to the plaintiff’s health. The District Court reasoned that, because he did not affirmatively report his hallucinations, the defendants lacked the requisite knowledge for Eighth Amendment liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether each defendant knew of a serious risk to the plaintiff’s health and whether they disregarded that risk by their actions or inaction. The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s grant of summary judgment on both the conditions of confinement and inadequate medical care claims under the Eighth Amendment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Suarez v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a senior engineer at a city water-treatment plant, applied for a superintendent position. Despite holding a Ph.D. in engineering and having extensive technical experience, he lacked significant leadership experience. The city’s hiring process initially required a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, but the city selected a younger, white candidate without a degree who had substantial leadership experience. The plaintiff, a middle-aged man from China, filed a grievance, and the city’s civil-service commission determined that the city had violated its written hiring policies by certifying candidates without the required degree. In response, the city revised the job description, removing the degree requirement and allowing work experience to substitute for education, then repeated the hiring process, ultimately selecting the same candidate.The plaintiff pursued claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on all remaining claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not submit evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the city’s stated preference for leadership experience was pretext for unlawful discrimination. The court found no sufficient evidence of procedural irregularities or subjectivity to support an inference of pretext, nor an overwhelming disparity in qualifications. The Tenth Circuit further held that the plaintiff failed to show pretext for retaliation, as the city’s explanation for changing the job requirements was not contradicted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Jiang v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law