Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Amber Lavigne filed a lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School Board and various school staff members, alleging that they infringed on her constitutional right to parent by providing her child, A.B., with a chest binder and referring to A.B. by a different name and pronouns without informing her. Lavigne claimed that these actions were part of a school-wide policy of withholding such information from parents.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the claims against the individual defendants and later granted the Board's motion to dismiss, concluding that Lavigne had not plausibly alleged that the Board had a custom or policy of withholding information. The court found that Lavigne's allegations were based on conclusions unsupported by factual allegations and that the Board's statements did not constitute active approval of the individual defendants' actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Lavigne had not plausibly alleged the existence of an unwritten policy or custom of withholding information from parents. The court noted that the Board's written policies encouraged parental involvement and that the statements made by the Board and school officials did not support the inference of an unwritten policy of withholding. The court also found that the Board's decision to renew the contract of the social worker involved did not amount to ratification of the alleged conduct. Thus, the appellate court concluded that Lavigne had failed to show that the Board was responsible for any constitutional violation. View "Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board" on Justia Law

Edward Snukis was stopped by Officers Matthew Taylor and Trevor Koontz after a report of an impaired man refusing to leave a parking lot. The encounter escalated when Snukis resisted commands and struck Officer Koontz. Officer Taylor tased Snukis twice, and both officers pinned him to the ground, with Taylor striking Snukis in the head six times. After securing Snukis in handcuffs, the officers noticed he had lost consciousness and provided emergency assistance, but Snukis died later that evening. Snukis’s children, as co-administrators of his estate, sued the officers and the City of Evansville under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The estate appealed the decision, focusing on claims against the officers for excessive force, failure to intervene, and failure to render medical aid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the officers' use of force was reasonable given Snukis’s resistance and the threat he posed. The court found that Officer Taylor’s use of the taser and subsequent strikes were justified due to Snukis’s active resistance. The court also determined that the officers provided prompt and appropriate medical care once Snukis lost consciousness. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers. View "Snukis v. Taylor" on Justia Law

A graduate student and resident advisor (RA) at the University of Massachusetts, John Doe, was found responsible for sexual misconduct by the University in 2023. The University sanctioned him based on complaints from four female RAs about his interactions with them. Doe filed a federal lawsuit against the University, its trustees, and the members of the hearing panel, alleging that the University violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for protected speech and expressive conduct. He sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court considered on a "case stated" basis, consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits.The district court ruled against Doe, finding that his First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court applied the Tinker standard, determining that the University's actions were justified because Doe's conduct caused or would cause a substantial disruption and invaded the rights of others. The court also held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for monetary damages. Doe appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the record lacked evidence of substantial disruption to the academic environment or the complainants' jobs. The court also concluded that Doe's conduct did not constitute a pervasive pattern of unwelcome conduct. Therefore, the court held that the University's actions were not justified under the Tinker standard. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, as the law was not clearly established that their actions violated Doe's First Amendment rights. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Doe v. University of Massachusetts" on Justia Law

From 1990 to 1999, Patrick Rose, Sr., a Boston Police Department (BPD) officer, sexually abused two children, John and Jane Doe. Rose pled guilty to 21 counts of child rape and sexual assault in April 2022. The Does, now adults, sued Rose, the BPD, and other defendants involved in the investigation and response to their abuse allegations, claiming the defendants deprived them of their Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity by enhancing the danger from Rose's abuse.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case before discovery, concluding that the defendants could not be held responsible under the state-created danger doctrine because the Does did not sufficiently allege that the defendants' actions enhanced Rose's abuse and caused them harm. The court also dismissed the Does' remaining claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's decision regarding the Does' Fourteenth Amendment claims. The appellate court concluded that the Does plausibly alleged that some of the defendants' actions enhanced the danger to them, meeting the first requirement of the state-created danger test. The court remanded the case for the district court to evaluate those actions under the test's remaining requirements. The appellate court also vacated the dismissal of the claims against the City of Boston and the DCF defendants, allowing the Does to address those claims. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Does' § 1985 claims, agreeing with the district court that the Does failed to allege membership in a protected class or class-based discrimination. View "Doe v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

Davariol Marquavis Taylor, an incarcerated individual, sued several members of the correctional staff at Marquette Branch Prison under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations. Taylor claimed that a nurse administered incorrect medication, resulting in another inmate's overdose and death. He also alleged that a doctor sexually assaulted him and punched him when he resisted. Taylor sought to proceed in forma pauperis, which allows a litigant to avoid paying filing fees upfront due to financial constraints.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, citing the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) “three-strikes” rule, which prevents incarcerated individuals from proceeding in forma pauperis if they have had three or more prior cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. The district court identified four previous cases as strikes against Taylor and dismissed his suit when he did not pay the filing fee. Taylor appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that Taylor had only two valid PLRA strikes, not three. The court determined that the district court's original order incorrectly counted two cases, Adler and Stump, as strikes. The court clarified that dismissals based on Eleventh Amendment immunity or improper filing under § 1983 do not count as strikes unless all claims in the complaint are dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Taylor v. Stevens" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two national organizations and five sets of parents, challenged three Washington laws regulating minors' access to mental health care and shelter services, particularly for transgender minors. The parents' children had shown signs of gender dysphoria, and the plaintiffs argued that the laws constrained their ability to parent, forced them to censor their speech, and limited their access to information about their children.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that the plaintiffs' alleged harms were speculative and not concrete injuries. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated current or future injuries sufficient to confer standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing based on current injuries because their alleged injuries were self-inflicted and not directly caused by the laws. The court also found that the plaintiffs' fears of future injuries were too speculative and not imminent. Additionally, the court held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not demonstrate that their members had standing to sue in their own right.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated standing to bring their claims and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action. View "International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Rodney Burch, the former Public Works Director for the City of Chubbuck, Idaho, filed a lawsuit against the City and Mayor Kevin England, alleging First Amendment retaliation and violations of Idaho state law. Burch claimed that adverse employment actions were taken against him due to his protected speech, which included criticisms of England’s policies and performance, advocacy for a city administrator position, and displaying a political yard sign supporting England’s opponent during the mayoral election.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were made pursuant to his official duties and thus were not protected speech under the First Amendment. However, the court recognized that Burch’s political yard sign was protected speech. Despite this, the court concluded that Burch failed to establish a First Amendment violation because the defendants had adequate justification for their actions and would have taken the same actions regardless of the yard sign.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Burch’s criticisms and advocacy were unprotected as they were part of his official duties. The court also found that while Burch’s yard sign was protected speech, the defendants had legitimate reasons for their actions, including Burch’s unprotected speech and the need to maintain effective city operations. Additionally, the court held that Burch’s state law claim was time-barred as the adverse employment actions occurred outside the statute of limitations.In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Burch’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Idaho state law claim both failed as a matter of law. View "Burch v. City of Chubbuck" on Justia Law

David Meza, an employee of Union Pacific Railroad Co. for over twenty years, suffered a traumatic brain injury from a non-job-related motorcycle accident. Despite his treating physicians clearing him to return to work, Union Pacific's medical examiner recommended work restrictions due to the risk of future seizures. These restrictions prevented Meza from returning to his previous position, leading him to seek other employment within the company. Meza sued Union Pacific, alleging that the company discriminated against him by regarding him as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific. The court concluded that Union Pacific did not regard Meza as currently disabled but imposed restrictions based on potential future effects of his injury. Meza appealed this decision, arguing that the company's actions constituted illegal discrimination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Meza. The court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Union Pacific regarded Meza as disabled. The medical examiner's report suggested that Meza's brain injury could be perceived as an impairment, which could support Meza's claim. The court distinguished this case from Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co., noting that Meza's condition could be seen as an existing impairment rather than a future risk.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the lower court to consider other unresolved issues, such as whether Meza was qualified for his job post-accident and whether his condition posed a direct threat to workplace safety. View "Meza v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

Police identified the defendant as a suspect in a violent assault and rape after DNA evidence linked him to the crime. During a custodial interview, the defendant denied involvement and offered an implausible explanation for the DNA match. The victim died three days later, and the State charged the defendant with capital murder and rape. A jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court merged the rape conviction into the capital murder conviction at sentencing.Prior to trial in the Sedgwick District Court, the defendant moved to suppress his statements to police, arguing he could not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights due to cognitive impairments. The court heard testimony from expert witnesses for both sides and ultimately found the defendant had sufficient cognitive ability to understand his rights and denied the motion to suppress. The defendant also objected to the racial composition of the jury pool, requested an implicit bias instruction, and challenged the court’s refusal to remove a juror for cause. The district court overruled these objections and denied a motion for a new trial.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, finding substantial evidence supported the district court’s conclusion. The court also held that the defendant failed to demonstrate systematic exclusion of a distinctive group from the jury pool or substantial underrepresentation of Black jurors. The court found no error in the district court’s refusal to give an implicit bias instruction, as the requested instruction was not legally appropriate. Finally, the court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the denial of a for-cause juror challenge because the juror was removed by peremptory strike. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. McNeal " on Justia Law

The Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (WLC) frequently submits Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) for records to aid in representing incarcerated individuals. Frustrated by the Bureau’s delays in responding to these requests, WLC filed a lawsuit claiming the Bureau has a policy or practice of violating FOIA by not responding promptly. WLC sought an injunction to reform the Bureau’s FOIA processes to expedite record production.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that WLC had a viable policy or practice claim but granted summary judgment to the Bureau. The court credited an affidavit from the Bureau describing efforts to improve FOIA response times and found no evidence of a policy or practice of violating FOIA. WLC appealed, arguing that the Bureau’s requirement to submit individual FOIA requests for prisoners’ disciplinary and educational records, rather than using an expedited process like the one for medical records under the Privacy Act, unnecessarily increased delays.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Bureau’s practice of processing requests for individual prisoners’ records under FOIA, rather than creating a separate expedited process, does not violate FOIA. The court found that FOIA does not require the Bureau to waive its statutory entitlements under the Privacy Act for non-medical records. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, concluding that WLC’s claim failed as a matter of law. The court also upheld the denial of WLC’s discovery request, finding it unnecessary given the legal insufficiency of WLC’s claim. View "Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law