Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Anthony Lemicy was convicted by a jury on four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district court sentenced him to consecutive 30-year terms for each count, totaling 120 years. Lemicy appealed, raising several claims including improper waiver of his right to counsel, violation of his right to a fair trial due to appearing in an orange jumpsuit and restraints, improper jury instructions, insufficient evidence, incorrect calculation of criminal history points, and an unreasonable sentence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri initially appointed a federal public defender for Lemicy, but after conflicts, he chose to represent himself with standby counsel. The court repeatedly informed him of the risks and limitations of self-representation, which he acknowledged. During the trial, Lemicy appeared in jail-issued clothing by choice, despite the court offering him the opportunity to change. The jury was instructed to disregard his appearance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. It found that Lemicy knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and the district court did not err in its handling of standby counsel. The court also determined that Lemicy was not compelled to wear the orange jumpsuit and any error was invited by him. The jury instructions were deemed appropriate, and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court upheld the calculation of criminal history points and found the sentence reasonable, given the severity of the offenses and the involvement of multiple victims.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that there were no violations of Lemicy’s constitutional rights and that the sentence imposed was within the court’s discretion. View "United States v. Lemicy" on Justia Law

In 2001, Alphonse Fletcher, Jr. acquired property associated with two apartment units in a residential cooperative corporation controlled by The Dakota, Inc. In 2008, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. approved a loan to Fletcher, secured by his rights in the property. Fletcher, Chase, and The Dakota entered into an agreement recognizing The Dakota's priority to proceeds from any sale or subletting of Fletcher's apartments. In 2011, Fletcher sued The Dakota for racial discrimination, and The Dakota counterclaimed for legal fees and costs based on Fletcher's proprietary lease.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to The Dakota in the Fletcher action and awarded attorneys' fees and costs. While this action was pending, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP initiated a CPLR 5225 proceeding against Chase, The Dakota, and Fletcher to seize and sell Fletcher's apartments to satisfy a judgment for unpaid legal fees. The Dakota claimed a superior interest in Fletcher's property based on the fee judgment, while Chase argued that The Dakota's lien was not superior and that the lease provision authorizing attorneys' fees was either inapplicable or unconscionable.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to The Dakota, and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating that Chase's contentions were an impermissible collateral attack on The Dakota's judgment. Chase moved for leave to appeal and to intervene and vacate the judgment in the Fletcher action. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion, but the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.The New York Court of Appeals held that Chase, as a nonparty to the original action, was not barred from challenging the fee award in a separate proceeding. The court concluded that Chase was not required to intervene in the Fletcher action to protect its interests and that doing so would violate Chase's due process rights. The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings. View "Matter of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Victor Ibhawa, a Black, Nigerian Catholic priest, was hired by the Diocese of Buffalo in 2016 as the Parish Administrator of the Blessed Trinity Church. He was reappointed in January 2019 for another three-year term but was terminated on September 28, 2020. Ibhawa filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in November 2020, alleging racial discrimination, including incidents involving racial slurs and xenophobic remarks. He claimed that Diocesan officials failed to investigate these incidents and made offensive remarks about foreign priests. Ibhawa's employment was terminated, and his priestly faculties were removed, preventing him from applying for another priest position in the Diocese. He alleged hostile work environment and unlawful termination based on race and national origin.The DHR dismissed Ibhawa's complaint, citing the "ministerial exception" under the First Amendment, which it interpreted as a jurisdictional bar. The New York Supreme Court partially reversed this decision, finding that while the unlawful termination claim was properly dismissed, the hostile work environment claim required further consideration. The Appellate Division, however, reinstated the DHR's dismissal, emphasizing deference to the agency's expertise and noting the lack of controlling precedent on the ministerial exception's applicability to hostile work environment claims.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the DHR erred in treating the ministerial exception as a jurisdictional bar rather than an affirmative defense. The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to the DHR for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Ibhawa v New York State Div. of Human Rights" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Antonio Juarez, Jose Hinojosa, Jose Espinosa, and Maria Morfin filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino City Unified School District following an incident involving Officer Alejandro Brown, a District employee. In February 2018, Juarez found a cell phone and later, Officer Brown, tracking his phone, confronted the plaintiffs, identifying himself as a District police officer. Brown, armed and displaying his badge, demanded compliance, struck Juarez with his firearm, and threatened the others. Brown later pled guilty to assault and battery and threatening the plaintiffs under color of law.The Superior Court of Riverside County sustained the District’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint without leave to amend, leading to the dismissal of the case. The court found the complaint insufficient to establish that Officer Brown was acting within the scope of his employment with the District and dismissed the claims of negligence, battery, assault, negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, false arrest and imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Bane Act.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court held that the scope of employment is a factual issue that cannot be resolved as a matter of law on demurrer. The court found that Officer Brown’s off-duty misconduct, while investigating a suspected theft and wielding his authority as a peace officer, could be regarded as an outgrowth of his employment. The court directed the trial court to vacate its order sustaining the demurrer, enter a new order overruling the demurrer, and conduct further proceedings. The appellate court also rejected the District’s arguments regarding the Bane Act and found the plaintiffs’ allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. View "Juarez v. San Bernardino City Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

In late 2020, the FBI began investigating Tyron Offutt for narcotics trafficking in Centralia, Illinois. A confidential informant conducted three controlled purchases of methamphetamine from Offutt, which were recorded. Based on these buys, a search warrant was obtained and executed on February 3, 2021. Offutt attempted to flee during a traffic stop but was eventually apprehended. The search of his residence revealed methamphetamine, firearms, marijuana, cash, and drug paraphernalia.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois appointed Dan Cronin as Offutt’s attorney, but he was later replaced by Rebecca J. Grosser due to a conflict of interest. Offutt was indicted on multiple counts related to drug distribution and firearm possession. Offutt requested new counsel multiple times, citing communication issues, and eventually, Bobby Edward Bailey was appointed as his third attorney. Offutt’s trial commenced on December 6, 2022, and he was found guilty on three counts but the jury could not reach a verdict on one count.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Offutt challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing that the district court erred in instructing the jury that his flight could be considered evidence of guilt and that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when his request for counsel at sentencing was denied. The Seventh Circuit held that the flight instruction did not affect the trial's outcome and that Offutt had constructively waived his right to counsel by refusing to work with appointed attorneys and failing to retain private counsel. The court affirmed Offutt’s conviction and sentence. View "USA v. Offutt" on Justia Law

In 2016, James E. Moore, Jr., also known as Kevin Thompson, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against corrections officer Troy Booth and four other officers at Fishkill Correctional Facility, alleging excessive force. The officers, represented by the New York State Attorney General, claimed Thompson failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). In 2020, the Attorney General withdrew as Booth's counsel due to his non-participation. Booth subsequently failed to appear for a deposition and a pre-motion conference, leading the district court to strike his answer as a sanction. The district court dismissed the claims against the other officers for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but granted a default judgment against Booth, awarding $50,000 in damages.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims against the four other officers on the grounds that Thompson had not exhausted administrative remedies. However, it granted a default judgment against Booth because his answer, which included the exhaustion defense, had been struck due to his non-participation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court abused its discretion by granting a default judgment against Booth while dismissing the claims against the other officers on the merits. The appellate court held that, according to the principle set forth in Frow v. De La Vega, once the district court determined that Thompson could not maintain his claims against the litigating defendants due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it should have dismissed the claims against Booth for the same reason. The Second Circuit vacated the default judgment and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of Booth. View "Thompson v. Booth" on Justia Law

James Lamont Bagsby was convicted and sentenced to 107 years to life for violent crimes committed at age 15. After serving over 15 years, he petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d), which applies to juveniles sentenced to life without parole. Bagsby argued his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole, citing People v. Heard, which held that denying such juveniles the opportunity to petition for resentencing violates equal protection. The trial court agreed, granted his petition, and ordered his release, but stayed the release pending appeal.The People appealed, asking the Court of Appeal to strike down the section 1170(d) resentencing provision or reconsider Heard. They also contended the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence Bagsby and erred by ordering his release. Bagsby cross-appealed the stay order.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's orders. The court upheld Heard, finding no compelling reason to overturn it. The court rejected the People's arguments, noting that the Legislature had not repealed section 1170(d) despite amendments and that the trial court correctly applied Proposition 57 and Senate Bill 1391 retroactively, making Bagsby's judgment nonfinal and outside juvenile court jurisdiction. The court also found the stay order would expire upon remittitur, making Bagsby's release effective as of the original release date for custody credit purposes. View "P. v. Bagsby" on Justia Law

The case involves Jussie Smollett, who was initially indicted on 16 counts of felony disorderly conduct for allegedly falsely reporting a hate crime to the Chicago police. On March 26, 2019, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office (CCSAO) moved to dismiss the charges via nolle prosequi, citing Smollett’s community service and bond forfeiture as reasons. The trial court granted the motion, and Smollett’s bond was released to the City of Chicago.A retired appellate court justice later filed a motion to appoint a special prosecutor, questioning the resolution of the charges and the manner in which the Cook County State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx, had recused herself. Judge Michael Toomin appointed Dan Webb as special prosecutor, who then indicted Smollett on six counts of felony disorderly conduct. Smollett moved to dismiss the new indictment on double jeopardy grounds and argued that the appointment of the special prosecutor was invalid. The trial court denied these motions, and Smollett was convicted by a jury and sentenced to probation, jail time, a fine, and restitution.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the second prosecution violated due process. The court found that the initial dismissal by nolle prosequi was part of a bilateral agreement between Smollett and the CCSAO, in which Smollett performed his part by forfeiting his bond and completing community service. The court ruled that the State must honor such agreements, and a second prosecution under these circumstances was fundamentally unfair and a due process violation. The court reversed Smollett’s conviction and remanded the case with directions to enter a judgment of dismissal. View "People v. Smollett" on Justia Law

Robert Mann, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), challenging CHP’s vehicle impound policies. Mann argued that the impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what he characterized as wasteful, unlawful, and unconstitutional law enforcement policies. The trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and to revise its notice form to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a motion for judgment against Youth Justice Coalition and entered judgment in favor of defendant Warren A. Stanley, who had retired before the trial. The court found that Stanley, as a former public officer, was no longer a proper defendant. The trial court issued a permanent injunction requiring CHP to revise its vehicle impound procedures, including considering the ability to pay and revising notice forms.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the injunction improperly required CHP to contravene valid statutes, relied on inapplicable case law, conflicted with the existing statutory scheme, and mandated unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring CHP to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and revise its notice forms, as these requirements were not mandated by due process and conflicted with statutory provisions. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellant. View "Mann v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant, Eliseo Martinez, restrained Nicasio Calixto Pascual while his cousin, Valente Martinez, stabbed Calixto 18 times. During an interview with detectives, Martinez admitted his participation in the stabbing. Martinez claimed the trial court improperly denied an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion, arguing it was not supported by the evidence and was prohibited under Penal Code section 192, subdivision (f)(1) due to the victim’s sexual orientation. Martinez also contended that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated when the court found him voluntarily absent from the trial.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found Martinez guilty of attempted murder and determined several aggravating circumstances, including that the crime was a hate crime. Martinez was sentenced to 23 years in state prison. Martinez appealed, arguing the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on attempted voluntary manslaughter and in proceeding with the trial in his absence.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court correctly denied the instruction on voluntary manslaughter because there was no substantial evidence that Martinez acted in the heat of passion due to sufficient provocation. The court also found that Penal Code section 192, subdivision (f)(1) rendered any provocation related to the victim’s sexual orientation objectively unreasonable. Additionally, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Martinez voluntarily absented himself from the trial, and thus, his right to be present was not violated. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. View "P. v. Martinez" on Justia Law