Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A police dispatcher who worked for a Michigan city alleged that she and other female dispatchers were required to conduct searches of female arrestees, even when female officers were available, exposing them to health and safety risks. The department did not have a similar policy for male dispatchers. In 2020, the dispatcher and several colleagues filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination. Eleven days after filing, the dispatcher became the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation, which ultimately led to her termination for violating department policy by using a case-management system for personal reasons. She later settled with the department, resulting in her reinstatement with a demotion, suspension, and loss of promotion eligibility.Following these events, the dispatcher filed a second lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, claiming that the city and its police commissioner retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights by filing the original lawsuit. She also brought a claim under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on the retaliation claim, finding no municipal liability, but denied summary judgment to the commissioner in his individual capacity, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The commissioner appealed, asserting qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity. The court held that the dispatcher alleged legally cognizable adverse actions and that her right to be free from retaliation for protected speech was clearly established. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the commissioner and dismissed the remainder of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction over factual disputes. The court declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the state-law claims. View "DeVooght v. City of Warren" on Justia Law

Richard Mabee died from a methamphetamine overdose while confined in the Wheatland County Jail. He had traveled from Washington to Montana, violating his probation, and was arrested after a traffic stop. During booking, officers did not observe signs of drug use or find contraband, but video footage later showed Mabee disposing of a small object in his cell. Early the next morning, Mabee exhibited signs of methamphetamine intoxication, which were observed by Deputy Sweet, who monitored him via video but did not physically check on him until he was found unresponsive. Despite attempts at CPR, Mabee was pronounced dead from an overdose. The source of the methamphetamine was unclear, but the County theorized Mabee had concealed it prior to his confinement.The Estate of Richard Mabee sued Wheatland County for negligence, alleging the jailers failed to provide adequate medical care. The County asserted that Mabee’s own negligence contributed to his death and should diminish or bar recovery. The Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Wheatland County, allowed the County to present a comparative negligence defense and approved a special verdict form for the jury to apportion fault. The jury found both parties negligent, attributing 95% of the fault to Mabee and 5% to the County. As a result, the District Court entered judgment for the County, denying damages to the Estate.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in permitting the comparative negligence defense. The Court held that, absent “special circumstances” where a jailer knows or should know a detainee is at risk of harm, comparative negligence applies and the factfinder may apportion fault. The Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment, concluding the Estate did not preserve any error regarding jury instructions on “special circumstances” and failed to show reversible error. View "Est. of Mabee v. Wheatland County" on Justia Law

In 2004, Clemente Javier Aguirre-Jarquin was arrested and later convicted for the murders of his neighbors, Cheryl Williams and Carol Bareis, in Altamonte Springs, Florida. The investigation by Seminole County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) focused on Aguirre after bloody clothing and a knife were found near his residence, and forensic analysis by Donna Birks, a latent print examiner, identified Aguirre’s palm print on the murder weapon. Aguirre was tried and sentenced to death in 2006. Over the next decade, new evidence emerged: a 2007 investigation revealed misconduct in the SCSO Latent Print Unit, undermining the reliability of the fingerprint identification, and post-conviction DNA testing failed to link Aguirre to the crime scene but implicated Samantha Williams, the victims’ daughter and granddaughter, who later confessed to involvement in the murders.The Seminole Circuit Court denied Aguirre’s initial motion for a new trial, finding the evidence against him overwhelming. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed this denial. However, after further post-conviction investigation and new DNA evidence, the Supreme Court of Florida vacated Aguirre’s convictions and ordered a new trial. In 2018, the State dropped all charges against Aguirre.Aguirre then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Birks, lead investigator Robert Hemmert, crime scene analyst Jacqueline Grossi, and the Seminole County Sheriff, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. The District Court denied qualified immunity to Birks, Hemmert, and Grossi on several counts and denied state-law immunity to Hemmert and Grossi.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Birks on the fabrication of evidence claim and affirmed the denial of state-law immunity to Hemmert and Grossi for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity to Birks and Hemmert on the malicious prosecution claim and to Hemmert and Grossi on the claim of inadequate investigation, finding no clearly established law requiring the investigation to eliminate all doubts. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Aguirre-Jarquin v. Hemmert" on Justia Law

An armed fugitive fleeing law enforcement entered a print shop owned by the plaintiff, forcibly removed him, and barricaded himself inside. After a thirteen-hour standoff, Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers used dozens of tear gas canisters to subdue the fugitive, causing significant damage to the shop and its contents. The parties agreed that the officers’ actions were authorized, reasonable, and lawful. The plaintiff alleged that the damages, which exceeded $60,000, were caused exclusively by the police.The plaintiff initially sought compensation from the United States Marshals Service, which denied the claim and referred him to the City of Los Angeles. After the City did not respond to his claims or his attorney’s letter, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Takings Clause does not require compensation for property destroyed by police acting reasonably in an emergency. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the City’s initial motion but later granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the destruction was a valid exercise of police power and not a compensable taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the government’s destruction of private property, when necessary and reasonable for public safety, is exempt from the Takings Clause. The court relied on historical understanding and longstanding precedent, concluding that such actions fall outside the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. View "PENA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Bartlesville, Oklahoma police officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at the home of Willis Gay Jr., who reported his son Thomas Gay was behaving erratically and possibly under the influence of drugs. Willis informed the officers that Thomas was unarmed but had made furtive movements toward his back pocket. Upon entering the home, the officers observed Thomas holding an innocuous object and appearing disoriented. Officer Lewis immediately pointed his Taser at Thomas and, after a single command, tased him. Officer Pitts drew her firearm. Thomas retreated into a bedroom, where Officer Lewis tased him again, but the Taser failed to incapacitate him. A brief struggle ensued, and as Thomas moved toward the bedroom door, making a motion toward his back pocket, Officer Pitts shot him twice, resulting in his death within minutes of the officers’ arrival.The Estate of Thomas Gay sued the officers in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officers moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied the motion, finding that disputed facts could allow a reasonable jury to conclude the officers violated Thomas’s clearly established constitutional rights. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find Thomas was unarmed and not holding any object when shot, and that the officers’ actions were not objectively reasonable.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. The appellate court held it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the district court’s factual determinations, as the record did not blatantly contradict those findings and no legal error was committed. The court further held that, under clearly established law, the officers’ use of force was objectively unreasonable, precluding qualified immunity. View "Burke v. Pitts" on Justia Law

Late one night in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Jason Roybal led police officers on a low-speed chase in a stolen car. After stopping, Roybal leaned out of his vehicle and fired a BB gun at the officers. The officers responded by firing their guns. Roybal then exited his car, dropped the BB gun, and fled on foot toward a civilian-occupied vehicle. The officers shot and killed Roybal as he was running away. The personal representative of Roybal’s estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, specifically claiming that Roybal was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot.The case was initially filed in New Mexico state court, then removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting qualified immunity and arguing that the complaint omitted key facts, such as Roybal firing a BB gun and running toward an occupied car. They also asked the district court to consider dash- and body-camera footage. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, ruling that it could not consider the videos at this stage and that the complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court properly refused to consider the video evidence at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that the complaint plausibly alleged a violation of Roybal’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, the officers’ conduct was not justified by the circumstances described, and the right at issue was clearly established by precedent. View "Fuqua v. Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

In 2023, the Florida Legislature enacted Senate Bill 264, which, among other provisions, imposed restrictions on real property transactions involving persons domiciled in China who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The law included three key requirements: a purchase restriction barring certain Chinese domiciliaries from acquiring Florida real estate, a registration requirement mandating such individuals to register their existing property interests, and an affidavit requirement obligating all purchasers of Florida real estate to attest compliance with the law. Four Chinese citizens residing in Florida on various nonimmigrant visas and a real estate brokerage firm serving Chinese-speaking clients challenged these provisions, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the Fair Housing Act, the Due Process Clause, and federal preemption.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida against several state officials responsible for enforcing SB 264. They sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the purchase restriction, registration requirement, and affidavit requirement. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge all three provisions but denied the preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were not substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the purchase restriction because none had shown an imminent injury from that provision. However, at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the registration and affidavit requirements. The court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the registration and affidavit requirements, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the constitutional, statutory, or preemption claims. The court reversed and remanded the denial of the preliminary injunction as to the purchase restriction, instructing the district court to deny it without prejudice for lack of standing. View "Shen v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services" on Justia Law

Several former students and their parents challenged a school district’s policy restricting the length of male students’ hair, alleging that the policy constituted race and sex discrimination and violated constitutional and statutory rights. The school district amended its hair policy during the 2019–2020 school year, removing language that previously allowed certain hairstyles, such as cornrows or locs, if they complied with other requirements. The plaintiffs argued that the enforcement of this policy infringed upon their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, Title VI, Title IX, and Texas law.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought to depose the superintendent and a former board president. The school district moved for a protective order, asserting legislative privilege to prevent inquiries into the subjective motivations of board members regarding the hair policy. The district court partially denied the motion, establishing a procedure where deponents could assert the privilege but would still be required to answer, with disputed portions of testimony marked confidential for later review. The district court declined to rule on the privilege’s applicability until specific questions were asked during depositions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in its handling of the legislative privilege and the protective order. The Fifth Circuit held that none of the appellants—including the school district, the board of trustees, and the individual former officials—had standing to appeal the district court’s order because the privilege holders had not personally invoked the privilege or participated adequately in the proceedings. As a result, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and also dismissed the pending motion to stay as moot. View "Arnold v. Barbers Hill Independent School District" on Justia Law

Mary Timmins worked as general counsel and litigation counsel for the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District in Colorado. During her employment, she discovered that certain members of the District’s Board were engaging in conduct she believed to be corrupt and potentially unlawful, including violating open meetings laws, improperly communicating with a state-employed attorney, and destroying public records relevant to ongoing litigation. After repeatedly warning the Board internally without effect, Timmins disclosed her concerns to reporters and private citizens, alleging that the Board members were acting against the interests of the District and its residents. She was subsequently terminated from her position.Timmins filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the District and three Board members, asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation. The district court dismissed her claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that her speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it was made pursuant to her official duties as a public employee. The court reasoned that her statements to the press and private citizens were essentially identical to those made in her official capacity and stemmed from her work responsibilities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that Timmins’s speech to reporters and private citizens was not made pursuant to her official duties, as her job did not ordinarily require her to make such disclosures outside the chain of command. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Timmins’s amended complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, declining to address alternative grounds for affirmance at this stage. View "Timmins v. Plotkin" on Justia Law

A professor at a public university alleged that several university administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The professor, known for his outspoken criticism of university policies and administrators on social media and in public forums, claimed that university officials attempted to silence him. He asserted that they threatened his job security, pay, research opportunities, and academic freedom, and that a university employee requested police surveillance of his speech. The professor stated that these actions caused him to self-censor, including making his social media account private and ceasing to post, out of concern for potential retaliation.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed the case after the professor filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging both retaliation for protected speech and the existence of an unwritten speech code that chilled his speech. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that the professor had not sufficiently alleged an adverse employment action, and granted summary judgment on the chilled-speech claim for the same reason. The court also dismissed the claim regarding the unwritten speech code, concluding that the professor had not adequately alleged a facial or as-applied First Amendment violation. Additionally, the court resolved two discovery disputes in favor of the university.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit held that the professor had standing to bring his claims but could not prevail on the merits. The court determined that, under established Fifth Circuit precedent, a First Amendment retaliation claim requires an adverse employment action, which the professor did not experience. The court also found that the chilled-speech claim was not distinct from the retaliation claim and failed for the same reason. The court further held that the allegations regarding an unwritten speech code were too conclusory to state a plausible claim. The court upheld the district court’s discovery rulings, finding no abuse of discretion or prejudice. The judgment was affirmed. View "Lowery v. Mills" on Justia Law