Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case involves members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees and various Auburn University employees (defendants) who were sued by Patti Northcutt and her husband, Walter Northcutt (plaintiffs). Patti, a former employee and doctoral student at Auburn, alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for previous lawsuits and grievances she had filed, which were settled through agreements. She claimed that the defendants breached these settlement agreements and interfered with her ability to complete her doctoral program and obtain employment at Auburn.The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the Lee Circuit Court, which they amended multiple times. The third amended complaint included claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and procedural due process violations, as well as state-law claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, asserting federal qualified immunity and State immunity under the Alabama Constitution.The Lee Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss the First Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied the motion regarding the other claims. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to dismiss the remaining claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition in part, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities under § 1983 for equal protection and procedural due process violations, based on federal qualified immunity. The Court also directed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to state-law claims for prospective injunctive relief, based on State immunity. However, the Court denied the petition regarding the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to federal-law claims for prospective injunctive relief and the state-law claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities. View "Ex parte B.T. Roberts" on Justia Law

Faya Rose Toure sued the City of Selma, Chief of Police Spencer Collier, and police officer Devon McGuire following her arrest for fourth-degree theft of property and attempting to elude. Toure claimed McGuire and Collier committed assault and battery, false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, invasion of privacy, negligence, wantonness, abuse of legal process, unreasonable seizure, and defamation/libel. She also accused the City of negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and fostering a custom of police abuse. Toure sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages.The defendants filed for summary judgment, citing peace-officer and State-agent immunity. They provided evidence including deposition testimonies, incident reports, and body camera footage showing McGuire witnessed Toure removing a campaign sign and subsequently attempting to elude him. Toure argued she removed the sign believing it was illegally placed and felt intimidated by McGuire, who was in an unmarked vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City but denied it for McGuire and Collier.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It found that McGuire and Collier were performing discretionary functions within their law enforcement duties, entitling them to immunity. The court determined that McGuire had at least arguable probable cause for Toure's arrest, and Toure failed to provide substantial evidence that McGuire or Collier acted willfully, maliciously, or beyond their authority. Consequently, the court held that McGuire and Collier were entitled to peace-officer and State-agent immunity and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in their favor. The petition for a writ of mandamus was granted, and the writ was issued. View "Ex parte McGuire" on Justia Law

Nickolas Trabucco parked at a gas station in Hernando, Mississippi, where Officer Andres Rivera was filling up his patrol car. Rivera approached Trabucco’s car, and after a brief interaction, Trabucco exited his vehicle. The subsequent events, partially obscured by the car, are disputed. Trabucco claimed Rivera grabbed and tackled him without provocation, while Rivera testified that Trabucco resisted and attempted to flee, prompting Rivera to tackle him. Surveillance footage showed Rivera restraining Trabucco, who continued to struggle. Rivera then used a taser on Trabucco, who fell and was subsequently arrested.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Trabucco sued Rivera under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force. The jury found that Rivera used excessive force but was entitled to qualified immunity. Trabucco’s motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial were denied by the district court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court first addressed whether Trabucco waived his right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by not properly moving for judgment as a matter of law. The court found that Trabucco’s actions sufficiently alerted the court and Rivera to the sufficiency issue, allowing the court to consider the evidence. The court then held that Rivera’s use of force was not unreasonable in light of clearly established law, distinguishing this case from precedents like Trammell v. Fruge and Hanks v. Rogers due to factual differences. The court also found no error in the jury instructions and upheld the district court’s denial of Trabucco’s motion for a new trial, concluding that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Trabucco v. Rivera" on Justia Law

A Hobby Lobby manager called law enforcement because Kristopher Birtcher appeared to be suffering from a mental health crisis at the store. Birtcher, who was unarmed and had committed no crime, tried to flee when sheriff’s deputies arrived. The deputies subdued him by double-cuffing his hands behind his back, securing his ankles, tying his ankles to a cord around his waist, and applying bodyweight pressure to his back while he was lying face down. Birtcher gasped that he couldn’t breathe and called for help. He stopped moving after several minutes, and the deputies kept him in a prone position for another 50 seconds before turning him on his side, then later returned him to a prone position. Birtcher died from asphyxiation and sudden cardiac arrest within 25 minutes of the deputies’ arrival.Birtcher’s minor daughter, A.B., brought state claims in state court after unsuccessfully litigating federal claims. She asserted claims for wrongful death, battery, negligence, and negligent training, and a survival action for violation of the Bane Act. The Superior Court of San Diego County granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no triable issues of material fact on the excessive force claim and ruling that the restraint was “by the book.” The court also ruled that A.B. failed to identify a legal basis for her negligent training theory against Sheriff Gore.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court concluded that there were triable issues of material fact on the excessive force claim, noting that the deputies’ use of forceful prone restraint with bodyweight compression could be seen as excessive. The court also found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the negligent training claim against Sheriff Gore, as A.B. had identified a statutory basis for the claim, and Sheriff Gore failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of material fact. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "A.B. v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

In 1998, Ruben Gutierrez was charged with capital murder in Texas for his involvement in the killing of Escolastica Harrison. The prosecution argued that Gutierrez used one of two screwdrivers to stab Harrison. The jury convicted him, and he was sentenced to death after the jury found that he either caused Harrison's death, intended to kill her, or anticipated that a human life would be taken. Gutierrez has sought DNA testing of evidence for nearly 15 years, claiming it would prove he was not present at the crime scene. Texas courts denied his requests, stating that even if his DNA was not found, it would not prove his innocence of the underlying crime.Gutierrez filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the district attorney, arguing that Texas's DNA testing procedures violated his due process rights. The District Court agreed and granted declaratory relief. However, the Fifth Circuit vacated this judgment, holding that Gutierrez lacked standing because a declaratory judgment would not likely result in the prosecutor allowing DNA testing.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that Gutierrez has standing to bring his §1983 claim. The Court reasoned that a state-created right to postconviction procedures can create rights to other procedures essential to realizing that right. The Court found that a declaratory judgment in Gutierrez's favor would redress his injury by removing the prosecutor's reliance on Article 64 as a reason for denying DNA testing. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gutierrez v. Saenz" on Justia Law

In 2018, South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, citing state law prohibiting public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood and patient Julie Edwards sued, claiming the exclusion violated the Medicaid any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid beneficiaries to obtain services from any qualified provider. Edwards preferred Planned Parenthood for gynecological care but needed Medicaid coverage. They filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to enforce rights under the federal Medicaid statutes.The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and enjoined the exclusion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded the case in light of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski, which addressed whether another spending-power statute created §1983-enforceable rights. On remand, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed its decision.The Supreme Court of the United States held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under §1983. The Court emphasized that spending-power statutes rarely create enforceable rights and that the any-qualified-provider provision lacks the clear rights-creating language necessary to support a §1983 action. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic" on Justia Law

Matthew Mungai, a Black man of Kenyan origin, sued the University of Minnesota, alleging racial discrimination and harassment while he was a student. He claimed violations under Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), the Fourteenth Amendment, and negligence. Mungai detailed several incidents of racial harassment by students and staff over three years, including derogatory comments and threats. He reported some incidents to university staff and the Student Conflict Resolution Center (SCRC).The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Mungai's claims, finding that his amended complaint failed to state a claim. Mungai appealed, focusing on his Title VI claim and challenging the dismissal with prejudice of his Title VI, MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court adopted the deliberate indifference standard for third-party harassment claims under Title VI, similar to Title IX. To establish liability, Mungai needed to show that the University was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment by individuals under its control. The court found that Mungai's allegations did not plausibly show that he reported the incidents to an appropriate person with authority to take corrective action. Additionally, the court found that Mungai did not provide sufficient facts to establish that the University acted with deliberate indifference.The court also upheld the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Mungai's MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims. The MHRA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Fourteenth Amendment claim could not be brought directly, and the University was not a "person" under § 1983.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Mungai v. University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Josiah Galloway sued five current and former Nassau County detectives, alleging they violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by improperly inducing witnesses to identify him as the perpetrator of a 2008 crime, coercing a witness to sign a statement implicating him, and withholding evidence of these deficiencies in violation of Brady v. Maryland. Galloway also sued Nassau County for state-law malicious prosecution. Galloway was exonerated after serving nearly a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied the detectives' motion for summary judgment, which included a claim of qualified immunity. The court adhered to this decision on reconsideration. The detectives and the county appealed, seeking to reverse the denial of their motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court's jurisdiction was limited to the defense of qualified immunity and only as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that by 2008, it was clearly established that detectives could not rig witness identifications, coerce a witness to sign a false inculpatory statement, or ensure that the state withheld Brady evidence from the defense. Therefore, the district court did not commit legal error in rejecting the detectives' qualified immunity defenses. The court dismissed Nassau County's appeal and affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects. View "Galloway v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

Cole Michael Jacob was charged with felony indecent exposure after exposing himself to a minor. Initially pleading not guilty, Jacob later executed a plea agreement to enter an Alford plea in exchange for a recommended 10-year sentence with 6 years suspended and the withdrawal of the State's intent to seek persistent felony offender (PFO) status. However, Jacob requested more time to discuss the agreement and eventually decided not to change his plea. On the day of his trial, Jacob entered an Alford plea under a new agreement, where the State agreed not to seek a sentence exceeding 20 years and to withdraw its PFO notice.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, held a sentencing hearing where the State recommended a 20-year sentence and presented a victim impact statement from the victim’s father. Jacob objected to the statement being read, claiming he had not received a copy. The court allowed the statement, and Jacob was sentenced to 15 years at the Montana State Prison with a requirement to complete sex offender treatment before being eligible for parole.Jacob appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, arguing that his due process rights were violated by the reading of the victim impact statement and that he should have been sentenced under the initial plea agreement, claiming he was not mentally competent to reject it. The Supreme Court found that Jacob’s due process rights were not violated as he did not allege any false information in the victim impact statement. Additionally, the court determined that Jacob did not preserve his argument regarding the plea agreement for appeal, as he did not raise the issue of his mental competence to reject the agreement before the District Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s judgment. View "State v. Jacob" on Justia Law

Santoasha Harris endured five years of sexual harassment at her job with the City of Milwaukee. When she reported the harassment in 2017, the City separated her from the harasser, conducted an investigation, compelled the harasser’s resignation, and restored Harris to her position within a month. Harris sued the City, alleging it knew about the harassment for years, failed to act, and retaliated against her for reporting it. Due to Harris’s bankruptcy filing, her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to the City. The court concluded that Harris’s Estate had not shown the City unreasonably failed to prevent the harassment or that she suffered a tangible employment action as a consequence of reporting it. The court found no evidence supporting the Title VII and Section 1983 claims against the City.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the evidence did not support the claims of quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, or retaliation under Title VII. The court found that Harris did not suffer a tangible employment action and that the City acted promptly and reasonably once the harassment was reported. Additionally, the court found no basis for employer liability under Section 1983, as there was no evidence of intentional discrimination by the City. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find for the Estate on its claims against the City. View "Bankruptcy Estate of Harris v City of Milwaukee" on Justia Law