Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Ashleigh Gelin died by suicide in November 2013 while incarcerated at the Baltimore County Detention Center. Her parents, Edward and Deborah Gelin, sued Baltimore County and several correctional officers, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Maryland common law. They claimed the officers showed deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's safety and were grossly negligent.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland partially granted and partially denied the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the complaint did not properly allege deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's mental health needs but did plausibly allege indifference to her physical safety. The court held that the officers could not claim qualified immunity or Maryland common-law public official immunity and denied Baltimore County's claim of governmental immunity. The County's subsequent motion for reconsideration was partially addressed, but the court did not rule on whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the County's appeal was premature because the district court had not yet ruled on all issues raised in the County's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, the district court had not decided whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims. As a result, the Fourth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance, pending the district court's resolution of the remaining issue. The court directed the parties to inform it once the district court had made a final ruling on the pending issue. View "Gelin v. Baltimore County" on Justia Law

Ohio House, LLC operates a sober-living facility in Costa Mesa, California, within a multiple-family residential (MFR) zone. The City of Costa Mesa notified Ohio House that it was subject to Ordinance 15-11, which mandates that group homes with over six residents in MFR zones obtain a conditional-use permit and meet a separation requirement. Ohio House's application for a permit was denied due to non-compliance with the separation requirement, and its request for a reasonable accommodation was also denied.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment to the City on Ohio House's disparate-impact claim and denied Ohio House's post-verdict motions. The jury found in favor of the City on Ohio House's remaining claims, including disparate treatment, discriminatory statements, interference with fair housing rights, and reasonable accommodation. The district court also ruled that Ohio House's claim under California Government Code § 65008 was time-barred.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings. The court held that Ohio House failed to establish facial disparate treatment as a matter of law because the City's group-living regulations facially benefit disabled individuals. The court also affirmed the summary judgment for the City on the disparate-impact claim, agreeing that Ohio House did not prove a significant, adverse, and disproportionate effect on a protected group. The court upheld the jury's verdict on the discriminatory statements claim, finding no unlawful discriminatory statements by the City. The court also affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the interference claim, concluding that Ohio House failed to prove a causal link between its protected activity and the City's actions. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of judgment as a matter of law on the reasonable accommodation claim, agreeing that the requested accommodation was unreasonable as it would fundamentally alter the City's zoning scheme. The court also upheld the district court's ruling that Ohio House's § 65008 claim was time-barred. View "THE OHIO HOUSE, LLC V. CITY OF COSTA MESA" on Justia Law

After the death of George Floyd, large-scale protests occurred in Kansas City, Missouri. On May 30, 2020, the Kansas City Police Department requested assistance from the Missouri State Highway Patrol to manage the protests, which turned violent. Law enforcement used tear gas and other munitions to disperse the crowd. Sergeant Jeffrey Spire deployed various crowd control measures, including smoke grenades and projectiles. Around 11:47 p.m., Spire fired projectiles indiscriminately into the crowd, one of which allegedly struck Sean Stearns, causing him to lose vision in his left eye.Stearns sued Sergeant Spire under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brought claims under Missouri law and a Monell claim against the Board of Police Commissioners. The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Spire was entitled to qualified immunity and that Stearns could not establish a Monell claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Spire was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim because Stearns failed to demonstrate a causal connection between his injury and retaliatory animus. The court also found that Stearns waived his Fourth Amendment claim by not providing a meaningful argument. Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court concluded that Spire's actions did not shock the conscience and thus did not constitute a substantive due process violation. Consequently, the Monell claim failed due to the absence of a constitutional violation. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the state law claims without prejudice, finding no abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Stearns v. Dean" on Justia Law

Derrick A. Davis sued the City of Little Rock, the chief of police, and three detectives for Fourth Amendment violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a no-knock warrant was executed on his residence. The warrant was based on an email about drug activity, a controlled buy using a confidential informant (CI), and Detective Bell's affidavit. The SWAT team executed the warrant, finding marijuana inside Davis's home.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Davis appealed, arguing that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the detectives' responsibility for the SWAT team's actions, the veracity of statements in the warrant affidavit, and the existence of a conspiracy to violate his Fourth Amendment rights. He also challenged the district court's handling of evidence and the imposition of sanctions for his failure to attend a deposition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Detectives Bell and Ison were entitled to qualified immunity because the right in question was not clearly established at the time of the warrant's execution. The court also found no Franks violation, as Davis failed to show that any false statements in the affidavit were made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. Additionally, the court ruled that Davis's § 1983 conspiracy claim failed because the underlying Fourth Amendment claims were properly dismissed.The court also determined that the district court did not err in considering Detective Bell's affidavit or in disregarding Davis's expert opinions. Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the sanctions award because the district court had not yet fixed the amount. The judgment was affirmed. View "Davis v. City of Little Rock" on Justia Law

The case involves Idaho's abortion trafficking statute, Idaho Code §18-623, which criminalizes procuring an abortion or obtaining an abortion-inducing drug for an unemancipated minor by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the minor with the intent to conceal the abortion from the minor’s parents or guardian. Plaintiffs, including an Idaho attorney and two advocacy organizations, sought to counsel pregnant minors and provide material support for accessing legal abortions in other states. They challenged the statute, arguing it violated the First Amendment and was void for vagueness.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a preliminary injunction against the statute, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the Idaho attorney general was a proper defendant under Ex parte Young. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment and void-for-vagueness claims. The district court also partially granted and denied Idaho’s motion to dismiss, dismissing only the claim regarding the right to intrastate travel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s finding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the Idaho attorney general was a proper defendant. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their claims that the statute was void for vagueness or that it infringed on their rights to expressive association. However, the court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the statute’s “recruiting” prong unconstitutionally infringed on their protected speech. The court determined that the “recruiting” provision was overbroad and could be severed from the rest of the statute. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction against enforcing the “recruiting” prong but reversed the district court’s decision regarding the other claims and remanded for modification of the preliminary injunction. View "Matsumoto v. Labrador" on Justia Law

A medical student at Florida International University (FIU) failed nine courses, including six while on academic probation, and was required to repeat a year. He was also reported for unprofessional behavior by three professors. Despite receiving accommodations for his diagnosed ADHD and anxiety disorder, he continued to perform poorly, failing multiple exams and receiving low scores on others.The student was placed on academic probation and later took a voluntary medical leave. Upon returning, he failed additional courses and was given another chance to repeat the second year. In his third year, he failed five final exams and scored poorly on others, leading to a third hearing by the promotion committee, which recommended his dismissal. The student appealed, citing various personal issues but did not initially claim inadequate disability accommodations.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of FIU, concluding that the student was not a "qualified individual" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because he could not meet the university's academic standards even with reasonable accommodations. The student appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the student was not a qualified individual under the ADA, as he failed to meet the essential eligibility requirements of the medical program despite receiving accommodations. The court emphasized the deference given to academic institutions in making judgments about students' academic performance and found that FIU had provided ample opportunities for the student to improve, which he failed to do. View "Nehme v. Florida International University Board of Trustees" on Justia Law

Tam Steven Nguyen committed various crimes at the age of 22 and was convicted in 2003 of attempted murder, kidnapping, and assault with a firearm. He was sentenced to a determinate term of 14 years, an indeterminate term of 25 years to life, and a life term with the possibility of parole. While incarcerated, Nguyen earned various credits, including good conduct and educational merit credits. These credits were applied to his minimum eligible parole date (MEPD) and youth parole eligible date (YPED), respectively.Nguyen petitioned the trial court for a writ of habeas corpus in 2022, arguing that he should be able to use all types of credits to advance his YPED, not just educational merit credit. The trial court denied his petition. Nguyen then petitioned the California Court of Appeal, which summarily denied the petition. The California Supreme Court granted review, ordered the appellate court to vacate its order, and issued an order to show cause.The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and held that Nguyen's right to equal protection was not violated. The court found that youth and nonyouth offenders are not similarly situated for the purposes of the challenged regulations, as youth offenders have two parole eligibility dates (MEPD and YPED) while nonyouth offenders have only one (MEPD). The court also determined that there is a rational basis for the regulation that limits the types of credits that can advance a youth offender's YPED, as it aligns with the legislative intent to provide a fixed and relatively stable parole eligibility date for youth offenders. Consequently, the court denied Nguyen's petition for writ of habeas corpus. View "In re Nguyen" on Justia Law

In 2005, Delano Hale was sentenced to death by an Ohio court for the murder of Douglas Green. Green was found dead in a motel room, wrapped in plastic bags, and had been shot multiple times. Hale was arrested driving Green's stolen vehicle and later admitted to the shooting, claiming it was in self-defense against Green's sexual advances. Hale was convicted of aggravated murder and other charges, and the jury recommended the death penalty.Hale's conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio Court of Appeals. Hale filed for post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court. He then sought federal habeas relief, raising multiple claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing errors under Blakely v. Washington.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Hale's habeas petition. The court denied Hale's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that his trial counsel's decision not to call a forensic expert was a reasonable strategic choice. The court noted that Hale's counsel had considered hiring an expert but ultimately chose a different strategy, which did not constitute deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington.The court also denied Hale's claim regarding his noncapital sentences, which were enhanced based on judicial factfinding in violation of Blakely. The Ohio Supreme Court had reviewed this claim for plain error and found no prejudice, concluding that a jury would have reached the same sentencing conclusions. The Sixth Circuit found this determination reasonable and upheld the Ohio Supreme Court's decision.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Hale's habeas petition, concluding that Hale's claims did not warrant relief under the deferential standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). View "Hale v. Cool" on Justia Law

Charles Leonhardt, a pretrial detainee at the Big Horn County Jail, suffered from back pain and was eventually diagnosed with two lower back infections after being transported to a hospital. He sued Big Horn County Sheriff Ken Blackburn, Jail Captain Debbie Cook, unnamed detention officers, the Big Horn County Sheriff’s Office, and the Jail, alleging negligence and deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment.The District Court of Big Horn County granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. The court found that Sheriff Blackburn had fulfilled his duty to arrange for medical care by contracting with Midway Medical Clinic, which provided medical services to inmates. The court also determined that the actions of Sheriff Blackburn, Captain Cook, and the detention officers were reasonable and did not proximately cause Mr. Leonhardt’s injuries. Additionally, the court found no evidence of deliberate indifference to Mr. Leonhardt’s medical needs, as the defendants ensured he received timely medical care.The Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the negligence claim, as the defendants acted reasonably and provided Mr. Leonhardt with access to medical care. The court also found no evidence that the defendants were aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to Mr. Leonhardt’s health, thus failing to meet the subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants on both the negligence and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims. View "Leonhardt v. Big Horn County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Matthew Fuller was convicted of possessing more than two ounces but less than one-half pound of marijuana, a felony, and was placed on supervised probation. After two subsequent arrests, the State petitioned to revoke his probation. The court appointed two attorneys for Fuller, both of whom withdrew. The court did not appoint a third attorney and conducted the revocation hearing with Fuller representing himself. Fuller was found to have violated his probation and was sentenced to a previously suspended two-year prison term.The Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Codington County, South Dakota, initially handled the case. Fuller was arrested following a traffic stop and charged with marijuana possession. He was released on bond and represented by multiple attorneys who withdrew. Fuller pled guilty to a lesser charge, and the court imposed a suspended sentence with probation. After his subsequent arrests, the court ordered him held without bond pending the revocation hearing. Fuller’s attorneys withdrew due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, and the court did not appoint new counsel.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court held that while Fuller was entitled to appointed counsel under state law, he did not demonstrate that the lack of counsel prejudiced the outcome of the revocation hearing. The court found sufficient evidence to support the probation violation, including Fuller’s use of methamphetamine. The court also rejected Fuller’s claims of judicial bias and due process violations, affirming the lower court’s decision to revoke his probation and execute the suspended sentence. View "State V. Fuller" on Justia Law