Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff, a senior engineer at a city water-treatment plant, applied for a superintendent position. Despite holding a Ph.D. in engineering and having extensive technical experience, he lacked significant leadership experience. The city’s hiring process initially required a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, but the city selected a younger, white candidate without a degree who had substantial leadership experience. The plaintiff, a middle-aged man from China, filed a grievance, and the city’s civil-service commission determined that the city had violated its written hiring policies by certifying candidates without the required degree. In response, the city revised the job description, removing the degree requirement and allowing work experience to substitute for education, then repeated the hiring process, ultimately selecting the same candidate.The plaintiff pursued claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, as well as retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on all remaining claims, finding that the plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext and did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiff did not submit evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the city’s stated preference for leadership experience was pretext for unlawful discrimination. The court found no sufficient evidence of procedural irregularities or subjectivity to support an inference of pretext, nor an overwhelming disparity in qualifications. The Tenth Circuit further held that the plaintiff failed to show pretext for retaliation, as the city’s explanation for changing the job requirements was not contradicted. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Jiang v. City of Tulsa" on Justia Law

An Indiana prisoner, while serving a 65-year sentence for murder, attacked a correctional officer at the Miami Correctional Facility in 2022. The attack caused serious injuries requiring outside medical treatment. Following an administrative hearing, the prisoner was found guilty of battering staff and was sanctioned by losing nearly 19 years of accumulated good time credits. The hearing officer based the sanction on the severity of the attack and the resulting injury and checked factors including the seriousness of the offense and the disruption to facility security.The prisoner filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, raising due process and Eighth Amendment claims. He alleged procedural errors, hearing officer bias, and that there was no evidence of serious injury. He also argued that the sanction was grossly disproportionate. After counsel was appointed, he submitted a brief that referenced, but did not fully restate, these claims. The district court denied relief, holding that the due process claims lacked merit and that the Eighth Amendment claim was waived due to insufficient argument in the brief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the relevant constitutional claims were not waived, as the amended filing preserved the original petition’s arguments. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the hearing officer’s finding of serious bodily injury was supported by sufficient evidence under the “some evidence” standard. The court also concluded that the loss of good time credits was not grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment, given the circumstances of the offense, the petitioner’s disciplinary record, and the nature of his underlying conviction. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Hawkins v. Sevier" on Justia Law

A group of former student-athletes filed suit against a university, alleging that between 2012 and 2015, they sustained serious hip injuries while participating on the university's women's rowing team. They claimed that the injuries were caused by deficient coaching, athletic training, and medical care, which they argued were influenced by systemic gender-based disparities. The athletes pursued claims under Title IX for gender discrimination and under Texas law for negligence. The university moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed with the university as to eight plaintiffs, granting summary judgment and finding their claims time-barred. For a ninth plaintiff, the district court partially granted and partially denied summary judgment, allowing some claims for compensatory damages to proceed. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling for the eight time-barred claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the claims were indeed barred by the statute of limitations.Following summary judgment, the university sought to recover litigation costs as the prevailing party under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The district court found the university to be a prevailing party and awarded the majority of the costs requested, after reducing the amount. The plaintiffs appealed the cost award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the university was properly designated the prevailing party, that none of the factors in Pacheco v. Mineta weighed against awarding costs, and that the university had met its burden to show the necessity and amount of costs sought. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of costs. View "Clouse v. Southern Methodist University" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a building in Corpus Christi, Texas, with significant cultural and historical importance, particularly within the Black community. Over several years, the City’s Code Enforcement Division cited the property for structural deficiencies and ultimately recommended its demolition. Despite the plaintiff’s efforts to preserve the building for historic purposes, the Building Standards Board voted to recommend demolition at a hearing that the plaintiff and her counsel could not attend. After the City temporarily suspended the demolition order, it imposed conditions on the plaintiff to secure the property, which the City later deemed unmet. The City then gave the plaintiff 30 days to demolish the building or face further action.The plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court against the City and two City employees, alleging that selective enforcement of building codes violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause, asserting a “class of one” theory under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded a substantive constitutional violation and thus did not reach the question of municipal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the claim against the City, as the plaintiff did not pursue claims against the individual defendants. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish a municipal policy, custom, or pattern of selective enforcement sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court found that a single cited instance of allegedly selective enforcement was insufficient to plead an official policy or custom. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action. View "Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

The case centers on a series of lawsuits initiated by an individual against the City of Athens, Tennessee, its officials, and employees, stemming from events related to the City’s annual fireworks show. In 2022, due to COVID-19 precautions, attendance at the show was restricted to City employees and their families. The plaintiff, objecting to the exclusion of the general public, attended the event in protest and began filming, which led to confrontations with City employees and ultimately police involvement. Subsequent disputes, including statements made by City officials regarding settlement negotiations and the cancellation of future fireworks shows, prompted the plaintiff to file multiple lawsuits alleging defamation and First Amendment retaliation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee reviewed the plaintiff’s claims in several cases. It granted summary judgment or dismissed the actions for failure to state a claim, rejected motions to recuse the assigned judges, and, in each case, awarded sanctions and attorneys’ fees to the defendants. The plaintiff and his attorney appealed the sanctions and recusal orders, but not the merits of the underlying claims, which had already been dismissed or affirmed in previous appeals or were unreviewable due to procedural defects. Prior appellate proceedings, including one in which the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute, precluded reconsideration of the underlying merits.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed only the sanctions and recusal orders. Applying abuse of discretion and de novo review where appropriate, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court properly denied recusal and correctly imposed sanctions. The appellate court found the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, often barred by immunity or privilege, and part of a pattern of harassing litigation. The court affirmed the district court’s awards of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-20-113, as well as the denial of the recusal motions. View "Whiting v. City of Athens" on Justia Law

An incarcerated individual with significant physical disabilities was held at a correctional institution in South Carolina on two separate occasions, each lasting approximately five months. During both periods, he was not allowed to leave his cell for physical exercise, despite needing such activity for rehabilitation and health. His cell was small and crowded, making in-cell exercise infeasible given his condition. The individual repeatedly requested permission for out-of-cell exercise, explaining that the deprivation was causing physical and mental deterioration, but was consistently directed to a pamphlet describing in-cell exercises. After nearly ten months in these conditions, he filed a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several prison officials and the director of the South Carolina Department of Corrections.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment for all defendants, concluding that the plaintiff had not established genuine disputes of material fact concerning the inhumane conditions of confinement claim. The court found the officials entitled to qualified immunity and determined there was insufficient evidence to support supervisory liability against the director. The plaintiff appealed only the rulings related to deprivation of out-of-cell exercise.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The Fourth Circuit held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the claim against the prison officials regarding deprivation of out-of-cell exercise, finding sufficient evidence that the deprivation may have been objectively serious and that the officials may have acted with deliberate indifference. The court also determined the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity, as the right to regular out-of-cell exercise was clearly established. However, it affirmed summary judgment for the director, concluding there was insufficient evidence of actual or constructive knowledge necessary for supervisory liability. The order was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bolick v. Anderson" on Justia Law

A woman called 911 to request a welfare check on her elderly neighbors’ home after noticing an unfamiliar vehicle and a young Black male there while the neighbors were out of town. When Officer Smith of the Childersburg Police Department arrived, he found a man watering flowers and asked if he lived at the house. The man, who identified himself as Pastor Jennings and said he lived across the street, explained he was watching the house for the neighbors. When asked for identification, Jennings became agitated and refused to provide any. Other officers arrived, and after Jennings repeatedly refused to further identify himself, he was arrested and charged with obstructing a governmental function.After the charge was dismissed, Jennings sued the officers and the City of Childersburg in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging unlawful and retaliatory arrest under federal law and false arrest under state law. The district court granted summary judgment and dismissal in favor of the officers and the City, finding that Jennings violated Alabama’s stop-and-identify statute, Ala. Code § 15-5-30, by refusing to give his complete name. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, relying on a prior interpretation of the statute that prohibited officers from demanding physical identification. On remand, the district court found the law’s interpretation uncertain and certified a question to the Supreme Court of Alabama.The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Ala. Code § 15-5-30 does not prohibit law enforcement officers, during a valid Terry stop, from requesting physical identification if a suspect gives an incomplete or unsatisfactory oral response regarding their name and address. The court clarified that suspects must provide sufficient identifying information and that failure to do so can constitute a violation of Alabama law. View "Jennings v. Smith" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was arrested after a police officer encountered him near a suspiciously parked car with expired registration in Superior, Wisconsin. Body camera footage documented the arrest, the plaintiff’s argument with officers, and his subsequent booking at the local police station. During the booking process, the plaintiff was agitated and complained of an infection on his wrist, which he said was aggravated by tight handcuffs. After a pat-down search at the booking counter, several officers escorted him to a receiving cell, where an incident occurred as he was moved toward a concrete bunk. The plaintiff alleged that officers used excessive force, causing him to fall face-first onto the bunk, resulting in injuries.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin organized the plaintiff’s claims into three groups: force during the booking (handcuffs and arm twisting), force used while moving him to the receiving cell (“dragging”), and force in the receiving cell (lifting his leg and removing the mattress). The district court allowed only the claims related to handcuff adjustment and arm twisting at the booking area to proceed to a jury. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all other claims, concluding that video evidence contradicted the plaintiff’s account of being dragged or excessive force in the receiving cell. The jury later found for the defendants on the claims that went to trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether summary judgment on the excessive force claim regarding the receiving cell was proper and whether exclusion of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses was an abuse of discretion. The court held that the video evidence so clearly contradicted the plaintiff’s version of events that no reasonable jury could find in his favor. The court further determined that the expert testimony issue was moot. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on all matters. View "Raddant v Douglas County" on Justia Law

A woman with a history of serious mental illness was civilly committed after being found incompetent to stand trial for a criminal vehicular homicide. She was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and persistent psychosis, and resided in a secure state hospital. After multiple unsuccessful attempts with medication and therapy, her treating psychiatrist petitioned the district court for authorization to administer electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), asserting it was necessary due to her refractory symptoms and inability to consent.The District Court for Dakota County appointed two examiners, both of whom agreed that ECT was medically necessary and reasonable under the Price v. Sheppard balancing test, which weighs the patient’s need for treatment against the intrusiveness of the prescribed treatment. After considering the examiners’ reports and testimony, the district court authorized ECT, finding clear and convincing evidence that the treatment was necessary and reasonable. The patient appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not separately analyzing whether ECT was “necessary to preserve [her] life or health” as required by Minn. Stat. § 253B.03, subd. 6(b). The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Price/Jarvis balancing test subsumed the statutory requirement.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed whether the Price/Jarvis balancing test adequately addresses the statutory language requiring that treatment be “necessary to preserve the life or health” of a committed patient. The court held that the balancing test does address this requirement, as it requires a court to determine that treatment is both necessary and reasonable. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, upholding the district court’s authorization of ECT. View "In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Graeber" on Justia Law

A substitute teacher employed by a staffing agency regularly worked in a school district where her child was a student. After a dispute arose between her and her child’s teacher, she filed an ethics complaint regarding the teacher’s conduct with the Arkansas Department of Education. Subsequently, the school district informed the staffing agency that she should not substitute at the school during the investigation, and later extended this prohibition to all district schools. She was still able to work at other schools in the county contracted with the agency. The state ultimately found her complaint baseless.She filed suit alleging that the district and two administrators retaliated against her in violation of federal and state law, including the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The Saline County Circuit Court granted her partial summary judgment, finding liability on her claims, and the jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The court also issued a permanent injunction preventing the district from barring her employment as a substitute.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that her Rehabilitation Act claim failed because she was not an employee of the district, as required for such claims. For her § 1983 and Arkansas Civil Rights Act claims, the court found she had not established liability against the district or the administrators. Specifically, she did not show that the district acted under an official policy or custom, nor did her speech constitute a matter of public concern protected by the Constitution in the context of a government contractor relationship. The court also vacated the permanent injunction, as no substantive claim survived.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment rulings, the jury’s damages award, and the order granting a permanent injunction, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the appellants. View "BENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GREER" on Justia Law