Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

HRT Enterprises pursued a takings claim against the City of Detroit after losing a jury verdict in state court in 2005. Subsequently, HRT filed suit in federal court in 2008, alleging a post-2005 violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the federal action, citing the requirement from Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), to exhaust state remedies first. HRT then returned to state court, where its claim was dismissed on claim preclusion grounds, a decision affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. After the state court denied compensation, HRT initiated a federal § 1983 action in 2012. The case was stayed when the City filed for bankruptcy, prompting HRT to participate in bankruptcy proceedings to protect its compensation rights. Ultimately, the bankruptcy court excepted HRT’s takings claim from discharge, allowing the federal case to proceed. After two jury trials, the district court entered judgment for HRT in September 2023.Following its success, HRT moved for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, presenting billing records that included work from related state and bankruptcy proceedings. The district court applied a 33% discount to the claimed hours due to commingled and poorly described entries, set an average hourly rate, and awarded $720,486.25, which included expert witness fees. Both parties appealed aspects of the fee award to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The Sixth Circuit held that the district court erred by concluding it had no discretion to award fees for work performed in the related state-court and bankruptcy proceedings, as such fees are recoverable when the work is necessary to advance the federal litigation. The court also found the district court erred in awarding expert witness fees under § 1988(c) in a § 1983 action, as the statute does not authorize such fees for § 1983 claims. The appellate court vacated the fee award and remanded for recalculation consistent with its opinion. View "HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree each had their vehicles disposed of by the City of Chicago after failing to pay multiple traffic tickets. The City acted under a municipal code provision that allows for immobilization, towing, and eventual disposition of vehicles registered to owners with outstanding violations. O’Donnell’s vehicle was sold to a towing company at scrap value; Goree’s vehicle was relinquished to a lienholder. Neither was compensated or had proceeds offset against their ticket debt.After these events, O’Donnell and Goree filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Their complaint alleged that the City’s forfeiture scheme was facially unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and the Illinois constitution, and included a state-law unjust enrichment claim. They also asserted a Monell claim against the towing company, URT United Road Towing, Inc. The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim, finding that the vehicle forfeiture under the traffic code was not a taking.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the City’s graduated forfeiture scheme is an exercise of its police power to enforce traffic laws rather than a taking for public use. The court reasoned that this type of law enforcement forfeiture does not trigger the Takings Clause of either the federal or Illinois constitutions. The court further found that because there was no constitutional violation, the plaintiffs’ Monell and unjust enrichment claims also failed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims. View "O'Donnell v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Three business entities and individuals associated with the operation of a retail store in Cedar Park, Texas, were subject to enforcement under a city ordinance banning “head shops”—stores selling items commonly used to ingest or inhale illegal substances. After receiving notices from the City, two of the appellants were charged in municipal court and fined for violating the ordinance, while the third appellant, a related business entity, was not charged. Following the municipal court’s judgment, the two charged parties appealed for a trial de novo in the county court, which annulled the municipal court’s judgment and began new criminal proceedings. They also pursued state habeas relief, which was still ongoing at the time of this appeal.Separately, the appellants filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging the ordinance’s validity and constitutionality under federal and state law, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed all claims as barred by the doctrine announced in Heck v. Humphrey, which precludes certain civil claims that would imply the invalidity of existing criminal convictions. The district court also dismissed a distinct claim related to termination of utility services.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that because the municipal court’s judgments were annulled by the trial de novo and criminal proceedings were still pending under Texas law, there were no outstanding convictions to trigger the Heck bar. Thus, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims challenging the ordinance and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the standalone water termination claim, as the appellants had disclaimed any intent to pursue it. View "Kleinman v. City of Cedar Park" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was incarcerated in Tennessee on sentences from multiple convictions. After being granted parole by the Tennessee Board of Parole, he was not released on his effective parole date because county officials filed a detainer warrant, claiming he had not completed his sentence and was required to serve additional time in county jail. The plaintiff remained in custody for over four months beyond his scheduled release date. He and his family attempted to resolve the situation, and he eventually retained counsel, after which the detainer was lifted and he was released.The plaintiff brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against the county, several county officials, state officials, and unnamed defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as state law. The county defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and asserted qualified immunity. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims against the state defendants. The district court granted the county defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that there was no liberty interest in release on parole under Tennessee law, that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and that no plausible claim was stated against the county under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Sixth Circuit held that Tennessee’s statutory scheme does not create a protected liberty interest in parole or in release following a grant of parole. Without such a liberty interest, the plaintiff’s due process claim failed, and the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The Monell claim against the county also failed in the absence of an underlying constitutional violation. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hester v. Chester County" on Justia Law

A prison inmate with a documented history of mobility impairments and medical accommodations, including the use of a wheelchair and a transportation code requiring wheelchair-accessible vehicles, was scheduled for transfer between two facilities. On the day of the transport, he arrived in his wheelchair but was not provided with an accessible van. Instead, prison officials attempted to move him onto a standard bus. The inmate protested, stating he could not board without proper accommodations, but officials treated his protest as a refusal. After a crisis negotiator was called and negotiations failed, prison staff physically moved him onto the bus, allegedly causing him injury.A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the officials’ awareness of the inmate’s needs, the transportation code in effect, the extent of force used, and the resulting injuries. The magistrate recommended denying summary judgment and qualified immunity for most defendants. However, the district court rejected these recommendations, granted summary judgment for the State of Washington and the individual prison officials, and found that qualified immunity shielded the officials, reasoning that the mistaken transportation code did not amount to deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because material factual disputes remained regarding whether officials had notice of the inmate’s need for accommodation and the extent of their investigation into those needs. The Ninth Circuit also found that these disputes precluded summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claims alleging deliberate indifference and excessive force, and that qualified immunity was improperly granted at this stage. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "WELDEYOHANNES V. STATE OF WASHINGTON" on Justia Law

A computer science teaching professor at a public university included a statement in his course syllabus that parodied the university’s recommended indigenous land acknowledgment. This statement, which challenged the university’s view regarding the ownership of campus land, drew complaints from students and staff, particularly those involved in diversity and indigenous advocacy. The professor refused to remove the statement when asked, prompting university administrators to replace his syllabus, publicly condemn his remarks, and encourage official complaints from students. The university then initiated a lengthy disciplinary investigation, withheld a merit pay increase during this period, issued a reprimand, and warned of potential future discipline if the professor continued similar conduct. The university’s actions were based on the disruption and distress reported by students and concerns about creating an unwelcome environment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that the professor’s speech was protected and addressed a matter of public concern. However, applying the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, it granted summary judgment to the university, finding that the institution’s interest in preventing disruption and maintaining an inclusive learning environment outweighed the professor’s First Amendment rights. The district court also dismissed the professor’s facial challenges to the university’s nondiscrimination policy, interpreting it narrowly to apply only to conduct resembling unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the university and directed that summary judgment be entered for the professor on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The appellate court held that the professor’s syllabus statement was protected academic speech on a matter of public concern, and that student or community offense or discomfort could not justify university retaliation or discipline under the First Amendment. The panel also ruled that the district court improperly construed the university’s nondiscrimination policy and remanded for further proceedings on the policy’s facial constitutionality. View "REGES V. CAUCE" on Justia Law

A thirteen-year-old student in Brewer, Maine, developed a relationship with a twenty-year-old man, who was a coach associated with her school. Over two years, the man sexually assaulted the student multiple times. During that period, rumors circulated at the local high school about their inappropriate relationship. The student reported these rumors to the principal, denied any truth to them, and the principal took limited follow-up action. Other school staff and a police officer had some interactions with the student and the perpetrator, but no one reported or investigated the abuse at the time. The student, now an adult, later sued various school officials, the school department, a police officer, and others, alleging they failed to protect her from abuse despite being aware of warning signs, and sought relief under federal and Maine law.At the United States District Court for the District of Maine, most claims were dismissed at the pleading stage for failing to state a claim. The remaining claims, including those brought under Title IX and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, were resolved in favor of defendants at summary judgment. The court also dismissed the claims against the unidentified police officer for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied the plaintiff’s request for more time to serve that officer, and later denied leave to amend the complaint to add the officer once identified.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions in all respects. The First Circuit held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not plausibly establish municipal liability under § 1983, nor did they show actual knowledge by school officials sufficient to support a Title IX claim. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s procedural rulings regarding service of process and amendment of the complaint. View "Hewes v. Gardiner" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2020, three veterans residing at the Soldiers’ Home in Chelsea, Massachusetts, died after contracting COVID-19. The personal representatives of the veterans’ estates filed suit against several Massachusetts state officials responsible for the facility, alleging violations of the veterans’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint asserted that the officials failed to protect residents from COVID-19 by not implementing adequate safety protocols and maintaining inhumane living conditions, including lack of sanitation, improper restraint of residents, and exposure to illegal drugs.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the complaint after the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged individual involvement by any defendant in the purported misconduct regarding COVID-19, and failed to provide details showing how the named veterans were specifically harmed by the living conditions. The court also found no clearly established legal authority placing the officials on notice that their conduct would violate the veterans’ rights, thus concluding qualified immunity applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The First Circuit held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants directly caused the harm suffered by the veterans, nor did it sufficiently invoke exceptions to that requirement. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law and thus, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Terenzio v. Urena" on Justia Law

After a fatal school shooting occurred at a high school in Michigan, H.H., an eighth-grade student at a different school, was reported by several classmates to have made threatening comments about possessing or bringing a gun to campus. The school administration, in response to these reports and heightened safety concerns, questioned H.H. with assistance from law enforcement, searched his person, backpack, and locker, and ultimately found no firearm. Despite this, the administration determined that H.H. had violated the school district’s code of conduct and referred him for an expulsion hearing, which resulted in his expulsion for 180 days.Following the expulsion, H.H.’s parents filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the school district and various officials. They raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of H.H.’s Fourth Amendment rights (unlawful search and seizure), procedural and substantive due process, and also asserted state law tort claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, finding no constitutional violations and determining that the defendants were immune from state law liability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the search and seizure of H.H. were reasonable under the circumstances, given the nature of the reported threat and school safety concerns. It found that the procedures afforded to H.H. during the expulsion process satisfied due process requirements, and there was no evidence of bias or arbitrary conduct by the school board. The court also concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and that governmental immunity barred the state tort claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools" on Justia Law

The underlying dispute arose after an individual was convicted of a crime in Louisiana, served part of his sentence, and later had his conviction reversed or vacated. Claiming factual innocence, he sought compensation under Louisiana’s wrongful conviction statute, which provides monetary awards to qualifying persons. Prior to filing this petition in state court, he had also initiated a separate federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights stemming from the same prosecution and conviction.In the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, the State requested a stay of the wrongful conviction compensation proceedings, citing Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 532. This provision allows a court to stay proceedings when there is a related action in another jurisdiction involving the same parties and occurrence. The State argued that the federal suit should proceed first. The district court denied the motion to stay in open court on March 27, 2025. The State then sought supervisory review from the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which also denied relief on April 30, 2025.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the district court’s denial of the stay. The court examined the statutory differences between the state law compensation claim, which requires proof of factual innocence, and the federal civil rights action, which focuses on constitutional violations by individual actors. Concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to stay the state court proceedings—especially in light of the legislative instruction to decide wrongful conviction claims expeditiously—the Supreme Court of Louisiana affirmed the district court’s decision. The main holding is that denial of the State’s motion to stay the wrongful conviction compensation proceedings was proper under the circumstances. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law