Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Richard Walker was arrested at his girlfriend Ramona Paulette's residence, where he was staying overnight. Officers conducted a protective sweep of the residence and found a loaded firearm under the mattress in Walker Jr.'s bedroom. Later, with consent from Paulette's mother, Laverne Shipp, officers conducted a second search and found drugs in Paulette's bedroom. Walker was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the searches violated the Fourth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied Walker's motion to suppress, finding the protective sweep and subsequent search justified. Walker entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. He was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Walker argued that the firearm and drugs were discovered through an unconstitutional search. The court found that Walker had standing to challenge the search and that the protective sweep was unlawful in scope when officers lifted the mattress in Walker Jr.'s bedroom. The court also determined that the district court erred in applying the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule and did not address the inevitable discovery exception.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Walker's suppression motion and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the inevitable discovery exception applied and to reassess whether Shipp's consent justified the second search. View "United States v. Walker" on Justia Law

Eugene Westmoreland, an Illinois inmate who uses a wheelchair, filed a class action lawsuit seeking prospective relief to make the showers at the Northern Reception and Classification Center (NRC) accessible. He claimed the showers were inaccessible to individuals using mobility aids. Westmoreland filed the suit without first using the prison's internal grievance process as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Six weeks after filing, he was transferred to a different facility with accessible showers, which led to questions about the mootness of his claim.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Westmoreland's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding his claim moot due to his transfer. The court also determined that no exception to mootness applied, as Westmoreland had not exhausted the internal grievance process, making him an inadequate class representative.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Westmoreland's transfer rendered his claim moot and that he did not qualify for any exceptions to mootness. The court also found that Westmoreland's failure to exhaust the grievance process as required by the PLRA made him an inadequate class representative, preventing the class action from proceeding. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. View "Westmoreland v. Hughes" on Justia Law

The case involves the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) suing Maria T. Vullo, the former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), alleging that Vullo violated its First Amendment rights. The NRA claimed that Vullo engaged in coercive and retaliatory actions against the NRA by pressuring financial institutions and insurers to sever ties with the NRA, thereby infringing on its free speech and equal protection rights. Vullo argued that she was entitled to qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied Vullo's motion to dismiss the NRA's First Amendment claims, finding that the NRA had sufficiently stated a claim and that Vullo was not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage. Vullo appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit initially reversed the district court's decision, holding that the NRA failed to state a First Amendment claim and that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity. The NRA then petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to address whether the NRA had stated a plausible First Amendment claim. The Supreme Court concluded that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to reconsider the issue of qualified immunity.Upon reconsideration, the Second Circuit concluded that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that, although the general principle that a government official cannot coerce a private party to suppress disfavored speech was well established, it was not clearly established that Vullo's conduct—regulatory actions directed at the nonexpressive conduct of third parties—constituted coercion or retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and remanded the case for the district court to enter judgment dismissing the remaining claims against Vullo. View "Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo" on Justia Law

Deputy Jose Nunez of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call about a possible home invasion. Upon arrival, he encountered Stephen Benavides, the homeowner’s father, at the front door. Nunez shot Benavides, who was unarmed, claiming the firearm discharged accidentally while switching hands. Benavides sued Nunez for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case. Nunez sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing the shooting was accidental. The district court denied the motion, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the shooting was intentional or accidental. The court held that if the shooting was intentional, it would be objectively unreasonable and violate clearly established law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s determination of a genuine factual dispute in an interlocutory appeal. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that it could only review the materiality, not the genuineness, of the factual dispute. Since Nunez’s appeal challenged the genuineness of the factual dispute, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded for a jury to resolve the factual dispute and determine the issue of qualified immunity. View "Benavides v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Louisville Metro Police Department officers conducted a search of Jennie and Saul Wright’s home, where they lived with their great-nephews, Jawand Lyle and Brendon Burnett. The Wrights claimed the search violated their constitutional rights and filed a lawsuit against Louisville Metro Government and unknown police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the claims of both the Wrights and their great-nephews.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed the Wrights' claims, and the Wrights appealed. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Wrights' counsel withdrew, and the Wrights, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint naming the previously unknown officers. The district court dismissed the claims against the individual officers as untimely and dismissed the Monell claim against Louisville Metro Government for failure to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the claims of Jawand and Brendon because they were not included in the notice of appeal. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Jennie and Saul Wright’s claims against the individual officers as untimely, as the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Rule 15(c)(1). The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Monell claim against Louisville Metro Government, finding that the Wrights failed to provide sufficient factual allegations to support their claims of inadequate training and unconstitutional policies or customs. The court declined to take judicial notice of a 2023 Department of Justice report and denied the request to remand the case for consideration of the report. View "Wright v. Louisville Metro Government" on Justia Law

Jordan Watkins, while in federal custody, underwent hernia repair surgery and subsequently experienced severe pain and swelling in his groin. Medical staff at the correctional facility dismissed his symptoms as routine side effects and refused to schedule a follow-up appointment before his transfer to another facility. Watkins filed Bivens claims against the medical and correctional staff for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States for negligent medical treatment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed all of Watkins' claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the Supreme Court's framework for evaluating Bivens claims barred Watkins' claims and that his FTCA claim was filed too late.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Watkins' Bivens claims could proceed under the precedent set by Carlson v. Green, which allows federal prisoners to sue for damages resulting from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. The court found that Watkins' claims fit within the context recognized by Carlson and were not meaningfully different. The court also held that the district court's dismissal of Watkins' FTCA claim was premature. Watkins may be able to establish the requirements for equitable tolling due to extraordinary circumstances, such as disruptions caused by COVID-19, which prevented him from filing his suit on time. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Watkins v. Mohan" on Justia Law

In this case, the families of Michael Jackson, Carl Wiley, Jr., and Rashad Henderson, who were killed during high-speed police chases in Houston, Texas, sued the City of Houston. They alleged that the Houston Police Department (HPD) has a policy of racial profiling that leads to more high-speed chases in predominantly black neighborhoods, resulting in the deaths of their loved ones. The plaintiffs brought several federal municipal liability claims, including violations of equal protection, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and substantive due process, as well as state tort claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part Houston's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings. The court dismissed all claims except the equal protection claims and Jackson’s state law claims. Houston then filed an interlocutory appeal, raising issues regarding standing, failure to state federal claims, capacity to sue, and governmental immunity for Jackson’s state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final district court orders except under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court found that it could only review whether the plaintiffs had standing to assert their equal protection claims. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their injuries did not stem from unequal treatment based on race. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s order regarding standing for the equal protection claims and vacated the district court’s decision on governmental immunity for Jackson’s negligence claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin prisoner, Armin Wand III, developed appendicitis in February 2018. He was seen by Nurse Beckey Kramer on February 13, 2018, but she did not diagnose appendicitis at that time. The next day, February 14, she recognized the symptoms and sent him to the hospital for emergency surgery. Wand sued Kramer and other officials, claiming inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment and state law negligence for not recognizing his need for emergency care on February 13.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied summary judgment for Kramer and another defendant, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The court recruited an experienced lawyer for Wand, but only for settlement purposes. After settlement efforts failed, the lawyer withdrew, and Wand's subsequent motion for recruitment of another lawyer was denied. The court noted Wand's legal blindness and severe stutter but believed he could represent himself with the court's assistance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Wand's trial testimony contradicted his earlier claims, stating he did not report lower right quadrant pain to Kramer on February 13, which was crucial for diagnosing appendicitis. The court concluded that Wand's case was substantively weak and that he had not shown prejudice from the lack of recruited counsel. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Kramer, holding that Wand did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the presence of counsel would have changed the trial's outcome. View "Wand v. Kramer" on Justia Law

Craig Lussi, a homeowner on Gibson Island, Maryland, sought to build an assisted living facility for elderly people with disabilities. The Gibson Island Corporation, a homeowners association, opposed the project, citing a restrictive covenant prohibiting business use of homes without approval. Lussi requested an exemption as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Maryland law, but the Corporation imposed four conditions, which Lussi found unreasonable. Negotiations failed, leading to litigation.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment to the Corporation, finding that Lussi could not show the requested accommodation was necessary for providing equal housing opportunities. The court also dismissed Lussi's retaliation and discrimination claims, concluding there was no evidence of adverse actions or discriminatory intent by the Corporation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court erred in its analysis of the necessity element by focusing on the removal of the Corporation's conditions rather than the requested exemption itself. The appellate court held that the exemption was necessary to provide equal housing opportunities for disabled individuals on Gibson Island. The court also found genuine disputes of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the Corporation's conditions, which should be resolved by a jury.Additionally, the appellate court determined that Lussi's retaliation and discrimination claims presented jury questions. The court noted evidence suggesting the Corporation's stated reasons for opposing the project might be pretextual and that community hostility towards disabled residents could imply discriminatory intent.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Corporation and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Group Home on Gibson Island, LLC v. Gibson Island Corp." on Justia Law

Perrie Thompson was sentenced to 50 years to life for a homicide he committed at age 17. Fifteen years later, he petitioned for relief under Penal Code section 1170(d), which allows juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole to seek resentencing. Thompson argued that his sentence was effectively life without parole and cited cases like People v. Contreras and People v. Heard to support his claim. He presented evidence of his rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated. The trial court denied his petition, stating that his sentence was not equivalent to life without parole since he would be eligible for parole within his life expectancy.Thompson appealed the decision. The Attorney General initially opposed the appeal but later conceded that a 50-years-to-life sentence is functionally equivalent to life without parole and that denying relief to such offenders violates equal protection. However, the court independently reviewed the merits of Thompson's arguments.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order. The court held that Thompson's 50-years-to-life sentence is not the functional equivalent of life without parole for equal protection purposes. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind section 1170(d) was to address the most severe punishments, specifically life without parole, and that the Legislature could rationally distinguish between life without parole and lengthy term-of-years sentences. The court concluded that Thompson failed to demonstrate that the exclusion of his sentence from section 1170(d) relief was irrational or unconstitutional. View "People v. Thompson" on Justia Law