Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves Pueo Kai McGuire, who filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the County of Hawai'i, the county prosecutor, and three deputy prosecutors, alleging violations of his constitutional rights, including malicious prosecution. The United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i certified a question to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i to determine whether, under Hawai'i law, a county Prosecuting Attorney and/or Deputy Prosecuting Attorney acts on behalf of the county or the state when preparing to prosecute and/or prosecuting criminal violations of state law.The United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i reviewed the case and found the matter of whether county prosecutors act on behalf of the county or the state to be unsettled under Hawai'i law. Consequently, the court certified this question to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i for clarification.The Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i held that, under Hawai'i law, county prosecuting attorneys and their deputies act on behalf of the county when preparing to prosecute or prosecuting state law offenses. The court's decision was based on an analysis of the historical and current legal framework governing prosecutorial authority in Hawai'i, including the Hawai'i Constitution, state statutes, and county charters. The court emphasized that county prosecutors are primarily responsible for initiating and conducting criminal prosecutions within their county jurisdictions, with the state attorney general retaining only residual authority to intervene in compelling circumstances. The court declined to extend state sovereign immunity to county prosecutors, affirming that they are suable persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. View "McGuire v. County of Hawai'i" on Justia Law

In September 2020, inmate Garfield Holley, proceeding pro se, sued several officers at Wallens Ridge State Prison under Section 1983. Holley alleged that the officers transported him to a dental appointment in a dog cage and subjected him to subsequent mistreatment. He claimed that this treatment was in retaliation for filing a grievance about a delayed medical procedure. Holley, who has asthma, described being chained in a padlocked dog cage in near-freezing temperatures for over six hours, leading to pneumonia and delayed medical care. He also alleged a pattern of retaliatory treatment against prisoners who complained about their conditions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Holley's complaint without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee, citing the three-strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court found that Holley had not adequately alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury, as the incidents described occurred approximately two years before the complaint was filed. Holley's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that Holley had adequately pleaded imminent danger of serious physical injury, noting the specificity of his allegations and the ongoing pattern of retaliatory treatment against prisoners at Wallens Ridge State Prison. The court found that Holley's allegations were sufficient to meet the imminent-danger exception to the three-strikes rule. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Holley v. Combs" on Justia Law

Inmate Travis Dantzler filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Dr. Tonia Baldwin, a physician at the Clarinda Correctional Facility (CCF), was deliberately indifferent to his knee pain by delaying an MRI and orthopedic referral for nonmedical reasons, specifically his parole eligibility. Dr. Baldwin sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing she was not deliberately indifferent and that the law was not clearly established. The district court denied her motion, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding her deliberate indifference.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa reviewed the case and concluded that Dantzler had created a material fact issue as to whether Dr. Baldwin was deliberately indifferent by delaying the MRI and orthopedic referral based on his parole eligibility. The court also determined that Dr. Baldwin was not entitled to qualified immunity, as it was clearly established that delaying medical care for nonmedical reasons could violate the Eighth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Dantzler had shown an objectively serious medical need and produced verifying medical evidence that the delay in treatment adversely affected his condition. The court also found that Dr. Baldwin's delay in scheduling the MRI for a nonmedical reason (parole eligibility) could support a finding of deliberate indifference. The court concluded that the law was clearly established, and Dr. Baldwin was on notice that delaying medical treatment for nonmedical reasons could constitute deliberate indifference. View "Dantzler v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

An off-duty St. Louis Police Officer, Milton Green, was mistakenly shot by Officer Christopher Tanner during a pursuit of a suspect who had fired at police officers. Green filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tanner and the City of St. Louis, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Tanner did not violate Green’s constitutional rights and that official immunity barred the state-law claims. The court also denied Green’s motions to alter or amend the judgment and to submit newly discovered evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Tanner’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances and that there was no constitutional violation. The court also ruled that Green’s Monell claim against the City failed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation and that official immunity protected Tanner from the state-law claims. Green’s motions to alter or amend the judgment and to reopen discovery were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Tanner’s use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, which involved a rapidly evolving and dangerous situation. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Monell claims against the City, as there was no constitutional violation by Tanner. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Green’s post-judgment motions and the dismissal of the state-law battery claims, agreeing that official immunity applied. View "Green v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

Randy Erickson, an inmate at Gogebic County Jail, Michigan, was involved in an incident with Deputy Sheriff Scott Voit. Erickson, who was serving a sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, had an altercation with Voit after making a disrespectful comment. Voit responded by canceling Erickson's family visit, which led Erickson to act out by hitting and kicking the cell door. Voit then handcuffed Erickson and took him to a holding cell, where he threw Erickson to the ground and kneed him in the back. Erickson later sought medical attention for injuries including a fractured rib and back contusions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Voit's motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Voit used excessive force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. However, the court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that Voit deliberately disregarded Erickson's medical needs, as there was no indication that Voit knew of Erickson's injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that Voit used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as the force used was disproportionate to the threat posed by Erickson, who was handcuffed and compliant. The court held that Voit was not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because the law clearly established that malicious and sadistic use of force violated the Eighth Amendment.However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the district court regarding the claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs. The court found no evidence that Voit knew of Erickson's injuries or that Erickson requested medical care from Voit. Therefore, the court held that Voit did not act with deliberate indifference to Erickson's medical needs.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Erickson v. Gogebic County" on Justia Law

Sara Watts, an African American woman, sued her former homeowners’ association, Joggers Run Property Owners Association (HOA), alleging racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Civil Rights Act. Watts claimed the HOA interfered with her property enjoyment through unwarranted citations, restricted access to amenities, and discriminatory treatment as a former HOA board member. She cited provisions from the FHA (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b), 3617) and the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed Watts' claims, ruling that the FHA did not cover discriminatory conduct occurring after the purchase of her home and that Watts failed to specify the contractual terms the HOA allegedly violated. The court found her allegations insufficient to support claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Watts presented plausible claims under the FHA and the Civil Rights Act. It found that the FHA's language is broad and inclusive, prohibiting a wide range of discriminatory conduct related to housing. The court concluded that the HOA's actions, including restricted access to amenities and selective enforcement of rules, fell within the scope of the FHA. The court also determined that Watts sufficiently alleged intentional racial discrimination causing contractual injury under Section 1981 and that the HOA's actions violated her right to use property on an equal basis with White citizens under Section 1982.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Watts v. Joggers Run Property Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law

A Texas state jury convicted Jesus Jaime Jimenez of organized crime involving violent robbery, and he was sentenced to 50 years in prison. Jimenez filed a federal habeas corpus petition, claiming his conviction was tainted by judicial bias due to the trial judge's relationship with the district attorney, who had misappropriated funds to pay for the judge's travel expenses.Jimenez first appealed his conviction through the Texas court system, where the Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) refused his petition for discretionary review. He then filed a state habeas corpus application, which was remanded by the TCCA to the trial court for findings on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations, and judicial bias. The trial court rejected his claims, and the TCCA denied relief without a written order. Jimenez subsequently filed a federal habeas petition, which was initially denied as time-barred. However, the Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability (COA), vacated the district court's decision, and remanded for further consideration. On remand, the district court again denied the petition as time-barred, but the Fifth Circuit found Jimenez entitled to equitable tolling and remanded for consideration on the merits. The district court ultimately denied relief on the merits, and Jimenez appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Jimenez's habeas relief. The court held that the state court's adjudication of Jimenez's judicial-bias claim was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. The court found that the trial judge's actions, while inappropriate, did not demonstrate actual or presumptive bias against Jimenez. The Fifth Circuit also denied Jimenez's motion to expand the COA to include his ineffective assistance of counsel and Brady claims, concluding that the district court's resolution of these claims was not debatable among jurists of reason. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and denied habeas relief. View "Jimenez v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

A Texas county judge, Brian Umphress, challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct's application of Canon 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to conduct their extra-judicial activities in a manner that does not call into question their impartiality. Umphress, who refuses to perform same-sex marriages for religious reasons while continuing to perform opposite-sex marriages, argued that applying the Canon to his refusal is unconstitutional. This challenge arose after a similar situation involving Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley, who was publicly warned by the Commission for her refusal to perform same-sex weddings.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Umphress's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that he lacked standing and that his claims were not ripe. The court also noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would have abstained under the Pullman doctrine, which allows federal courts to defer to state courts on issues of unclear state law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Umphress had standing and that his claims were ripe for review. The court held that Umphress had demonstrated an imminent injury in fact, as his intended conduct was arguably proscribed by Canon 4A(1) and there was a substantial threat of future enforcement by the Commission. The court also determined that the case was not moot despite the Commission's rescission of its warning against Hensley, as the Commission had not disavowed future enforcement against Umphress.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and declined to abstain under Pullman, noting that state court litigation was unlikely to resolve the crucial threshold question of Texas law. Instead, the court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Texas, asking whether Canon 4A(1) prohibits judges from publicly refusing to perform same-sex weddings for moral or religious reasons while continuing to perform opposite-sex weddings. View "Umphress v. Hall" on Justia Law

Gustavo Santander and his wife visited a sports bar in Fort Worth, Texas, where Jose Salazar, an off-duty police officer working as a security guard, allegedly pushed Santander without provocation, causing him to fall. When Santander confronted Salazar, Salazar allegedly punched him multiple times, leading to his arrest for public intoxication. The charge was later dismissed, and an internal review by the Fort Worth Police Department concluded that Salazar had violated departmental rules, resulting in his termination. Santander then filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed Santander’s claims with prejudice, stating that he failed to cite relevant legal authority to support his claims and did not show that Salazar violated any clearly established rights. Santander appealed the decision, arguing that the district court erred in its judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the district court applied an incorrect pleading standard by requiring Santander to substantiate his claims with legal authority in his complaint. The appellate court held that Santander’s excessive force claim was plausible and could defeat Salazar’s qualified immunity at the pleading stage. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Santander’s false arrest and malicious prosecution claims, as he could not show that Salazar violated clearly established law regarding these claims.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims but reversed the dismissal of the excessive force claim, remanding it for further proceedings. View "Santander v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Jacob Doe, a student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH), was found responsible for two allegations of sexual misconduct and subsequently expelled from the university system. Doe sued the university and several employees, claiming violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, Title IX, and various state laws. The district court largely denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, allowing Doe’s federal and most state law claims to proceed.The defendants appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appellate court found that the district court erred in rejecting the defendants' claims of sovereign and qualified immunity. The court held that the UNC institutions were entitled to sovereign immunity, reversing the district court’s decision to allow Doe’s claims against them. Additionally, the court determined that the individual university employees were entitled to qualified immunity regarding Doe’s due process claims for damages, as the right to cross-examination in university disciplinary proceedings was not clearly established at the time.However, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Doe to seek prospective injunctive relief for the alleged due process violations. The court recognized that Doe had adequately alleged a liberty interest due to the permanent expulsion and the ongoing harm from the erroneous disciplinary record. The court declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss Doe’s Title IX claim against UNC-CH, dismissing that portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed in part the district court’s rulings, allowing Doe’s claims for prospective injunctive relief to proceed while dismissing his claims for damages against the UNC institutions and individual employees. View "Doe v. The University of North Carolina System" on Justia Law