Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs placed their child AMS at a private academy after the Chamberlain School District did not meet AMS’s needs. A state hearing examiner decided that Chamberlain violated federal law and awarded Plaintiffs costs associated with AMS’s placement at the academy. The district court affirmed.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Chamberlain argued that Plaintiffs weren’t eligible to remove the case from state court to federal court because they weren’t “defendants” under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). The court explained that while Plaintiffs initially sought to recover from Chamberlain, their status changed when Chamberlain sought the state court’s review of the hearing examiner’s decision. At that point, Chamberlain became the plaintiff for removal purposes. Thus, because Plaintiffs were defendants, they were allowed to remove, so the district court didn’t err in denying remand. Further, the court explained that giving due weight to the outcome of the administrative proceedings, it concludes that Chamberlain denied AMS a FAPE. View "Judith Steckelberg v. Chamberlain School District" on Justia Law

In 2008, Taney County, through its Planning Commission, issued Emerald Pointe a permit to develop a gated community with private roads. Emerald Pointe subsequently began construction of the project. In 2016, the Planning Commission issued a stop-work order, demanding Emerald Pointe comply with requirements for certain public improvements. Emerald Pointe appealed to the Taney County Board of Adjustment (“BOA”), arguing the requirements did not apply to the permit. The BOA denied the appeal, and Emerald Pointe filed suit against the Planning Commission and BOA in the Circuit Court of Taney County, seeking judicial review of the stop-work order pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute Section 64.870. Emerald Pointe filed a lawsuit under Section 1983 for damages incurred while a stop-work order was in place. The district court dismissed the case after finding the suit barred by res judicata. Emerald Pointe appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that it applies Missouri res judicata law because the final judgment was issued by a Missouri court. Emerald Pointe could have brought the Section 1983 claim in the state court case. Emerald Pointe argues a Section 1983 claim could not have been added to the request for judicial review of the stop-work order under Missouri Revised Statute Section 64.870. Section 64.870 is the exclusive remedy for challenging the issuance of a stop-work order. However, nothing precludes a plaintiff from adding an additional claim to the state court case for judicial review. View "Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Taney County Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was held in pretrial custody at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (the Jail) in Little Rock, Arkansas, for five weeks. After he was released, Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against a Pulaski County official, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and disability discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all of Plaintiff’s claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 deliberate indifference and conditions-of-confinement claims. But because triable issues remain on Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the ADA and ACRA, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the record shows that Plaintiff indeed submitted “grievances” to the Jail complaining, for example, that he could not “stand up,” that he lacked help “changing or cleaning” himself, and that he could not “transfer to a toilet [and] back to the chair.” Moreover, at least one of Plaintiff’s disabilities—his paraplegia and the concomitant need for accommodations—was “obvious.” Thus, a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the Jail was on notice that Hall needed accommodations. Further, the court wrote that A viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Jail failed to provide him with meaningful access to beds, toilets, and the identified medical care services. View "Carlos Hall, Sr. v. Eric Higgins" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (“NSCS”) appealed from a jury verdict finding it acted with deliberate indifference after Jane Doe (“Doe”) was sexually assaulted while attending Chadron State College (“Chadron”). On appeal, NSCS raised three claims: (1) the Title IX claim fails as a matter of law; (2) the district court erred when it admitted the expert testimony of Dr. Charol Shakeshaft; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees. We begin with NSCS’s paramount claim that, as a matter of law, it was not deliberately indifferent after Doe reported being sexually assaulted.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions that the district court enter judgment in favor of NSCS and vacated the award of Doe’s attorney fees. The court explained that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that Chadron acted promptly—nearly immediately—upon learning of the assault. Chadron issued a mutually binding no-contact order between Doe and the accused, which was served on the accused at the end of his police interview. Chadron verified that the two students did not share the same classes and promptly initiated an investigation to determine what happened. Chadron interviewed Doe, explained the investigatory process to her, banned the accused from Andrews Hall, and accommodated Doe academically. Further, the court held that Doe cannot show a causal nexus between Chadron’s actions and the sexual assaults or harassment. View "Jane Doe v. Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on twenty-one counts related to his sexual abuse of his daughter AF, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting a sexually explicit photograph of AF's mother, Mrs. Freer, and a pornographic father-daughter incest video under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the sexually explicit photograph of Mrs. Freer and the pornographic incest video; (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that alleged prosecutorial misconduct denied him his right to a fair trial. View "Freer v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on charges of domestic violence aggravated assault and domestic violence assault and the trial court's finding of guilty on a charge of violating a condition of release, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial court violated his constitutional right to a representative jury by using the absolute disparity test to determine the racial makeup of the jury venire. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) appropriately determined the 1.01% absolute disparity in Defendant's jury venire was insufficient to show underrepresentation; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to subpoena the grand jurors. View "State v. Footman" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Forro children attended St. Augustine, a self-identified Catholic school in Hartford, Wisconsin. Wisconsin provides transportation benefits for parents who send their children to private sectarian schools, Wis.Stat. 121.54. The school district and the state superintendent of public instruction denied the Forros' request because transportation was being provided to St. Gabriel, another Catholic school in the area. The law stipulates that only one school from a single organizational entity in each “attendance area” may qualify for benefits. While both claim an affiliation with Catholicism, the two schools are not affiliated with one another in other significant ways. St. Augustine and the Forros sued. Several years of litigation ensued, including a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, two published Seventh Circuit opinions, and a Supreme Court of Wisconsin opinion, after which the Seventh Circuit concluded that the denial of transportation benefits violated Wisconsin law because it rested on an improper methodology for determining affiliation between two schools of similar faith.After noting that certain state law claims had been waived and that the federal constitutional issues did not require resolution, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that a declaratory judgment remains in effect against the Superintendent and the School District. The district court may decide what attorneys’ fees the plaintiffs should be awarded, if any, given that they have prevailed only in obtaining declaratory relief under state law. View "St. Augustine School v. Underly" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' claims that the closure of in-person education due to the COVID-19 pandemic deprived children of the free appropriate public education to which they were entitled and deprived and parents of their right to participate in their children's education, holding that none of Plaintiffs' claims were cognizable in federal court.Plaintiffs, three children with disabilities and their parents on behalf of a putative class, sued the Governor of Massachusetts, the Commissioner of Schools for Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and several school districts and their superintendents, claiming that the closure of in-person education during the COVID-19 pandemic violated Plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA and that Defendants illegally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of disability in violation the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed in full either because Plaintiffs lacked standing to request the relief they sought, because the claims were moot, and/or because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Roe v. Healey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court in the underlying action originally brought by Peter Marcus against the American Contract Bridge League (ACBL), where Marcus was formerly employed, holding that the district court erred in part.In the underlying amended complaint, Marcus and his co-plaintiffs sought unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a), and Marcus asserted that he was wrongfully discriminated and retaliated against for requesting his claimed pay. The district court entered summary judgment for certain plaintiffs and, as to Marcus's retaliation claim, entered summary judgment for ACBL. The First Circuit reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying Plaintiffs' motion to substitute a party; (2) correctly granted judgment in favor of ACBL on Marcus's retaliation claim; (3) erred in granting judgment with respect to the FSLA overtime claims of certain plaintiffs; and (4) otherwise did not err. View "Marcus v. American Contract Bridge League" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief challenging the restraint procedures used by the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC) under the Eighth Amendment and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), holding that the district court did not err in denying relief.Plaintiff, an inmate who suffered from severe arthritis in his shoulder joints, challenged the restraint procedures used on him by the DOC, including "rear cuffing" with a single standard handcuff, then later rear cuffing using "double cuffs," and still later using custom modified handcuffs. In this action, Plaintiff argued that the unnecessary pain caused by these restraint procedures violated his constitutional and statutory rights and sought an order requiring the DOC to adopt his own proposed restraint procedure. The district court denied Plaintiff's request for preliminary relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that DOC did not respondent with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs and that Plaintiff was unlikely to prevail on the merits of his ADA claim. View "Sosa v. Mass. Dep't of Correction" on Justia Law