Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

During a protest in Seattle on June 7-8, 2020, Taylor Cheairs was filming the event when Officer Anderson of the Seattle Police Department (SPD) threw a blast ball grenade that exploded and struck Cheairs in the groin, causing serious injury. Cheairs sued the City of Seattle, the SPD, and unnamed officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Cheairs was not seized, and no First Amendment violation because there was no evidence of retaliation. The court also ruled that without a constitutional violation, there could be no municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit held that although a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Cheairs was seized when Officer Anderson struck him with the blast ball, the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that the protesters near Cheairs posed an immediate threat to the safety of officers, citizens, and property. The court also held that Cheairs failed to establish a viable First Amendment retaliation claim because he did not provide evidence that his filming was a substantial or motivating factor in the use of force against him. Consequently, without a viable constitutional claim, Cheairs could not establish a claim for municipal liability. View "CHEAIRS V. CITY OF SEATTLE" on Justia Law

Officer Mason Roth shot and killed Bobby Jo Klum, who was walking through a residential neighborhood with a gun to his head, evading arrest, and ignoring officer commands to drop the weapon. Klum’s spouse and mother sued Officer Roth and the City of Davenport under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of Klum’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The district court granted qualified immunity to Officer Roth and concluded the City of Davenport was not liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment to Officer Roth and the City of Davenport on all claims. The court concluded that Klum’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure was not violated and that Klum did not possess a clearly established right against seizure by deadly force under the circumstances. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity as to their excessive force claim against Officer Roth and the City of Davenport.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 any right was not clearly established at the time, and therefore, Officer Roth was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the totality of the circumstances, including Klum’s non-compliance, evasion, and proximity to bystanders, justified the use of deadly force. The court also upheld the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Monell claim, concluding that Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue as to whether the City of Davenport had a policy that directly caused the use of deadly force. View "Klum v. City of Davenport" on Justia Law

Brandon Fulton alleged that Fulton County took his horses without justification and without paying for them, violating the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. He initially sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but could not establish that the County acted under an official policy or custom, as required by Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York City.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Fulton’s § 1983 claim and denied his motion to amend his complaint to sue directly under the Takings Clause. The district court reasoned that plaintiffs must sue under § 1983 for constitutional takings claims against municipalities and that Fulton failed to allege an official policy or custom causing the violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment directly authorizes a suit for "just compensation" in federal court. The court held that the Takings Clause is self-executing and guarantees a monetary remedy when the government takes private property. The court emphasized that the Takings Clause provides a direct cause of action independent of § 1983, especially when no other adequate remedy exists. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Fulton to amend his complaint to sue directly under the Takings Clause. View "Brandon Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Evy Orellana suffered serious injuries when a tactical canine bit her leg as a U.S. Marshals fugitive task force executed an arrest warrant for her boyfriend, Eric Trinidad. Orellana, Trinidad, and their baby lived in the basement of Trinidad’s mother’s home. The officers breached a sealed door to access the basement, and the dog bit Orellana during the search. Orellana sued the officers under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, claiming a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights due to unreasonable search and seizure.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the officers' motion to dismiss, reasoning that the case was similar enough to Bivens to apply its cause of action. The court also denied the officers' motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that this case presented a new context for Bivens because the officers were part of a specialized federal-state task force operating under a warrant. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court has cautioned against extending Bivens to new contexts, particularly when Congress is better suited to create a cause of action. The court concluded that special factors, including federalism concerns and the existence of alternative remedial procedures, counseled against extending Bivens in this situation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision, denying Orellana a Bivens remedy. View "Orellana v. Deputy United States Marshal Godec" on Justia Law

Angel Diaz, a prisoner in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Southern District of New York. Diaz argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the State could not provide him with constitutional conditions of confinement at any of its facilities, necessitating his release. He claimed that his high blood pressure and morbid obesity put him at severe risk of serious harm or death from COVID-19 and that DOCCS had no plan to protect medically vulnerable inmates like himself.The District Court referred the case to a magistrate judge, who recommended denying the petition on the grounds that Diaz's claim was not cognizable in habeas and should be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 instead. The District Court adopted this recommendation, holding that Diaz's complaints about the conditions of his confinement did not challenge the validity or duration of his confinement. Diaz's request for a certificate of appealability was initially denied by the District Court but later granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that Diaz's claim was indeed cognizable under habeas corpus because he alleged violations of the Constitution that would require his release from all available facilities. However, the court found that Diaz failed to provide sufficient factual support to make his claim plausible. As a result, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the petition. View "Diaz v. Kopp" on Justia Law

Amber Lavigne filed a lawsuit against the Great Salt Bay Community School Board and various school staff members, alleging that they infringed on her constitutional right to parent by providing her child, A.B., with a chest binder and referring to A.B. by a different name and pronouns without informing her. Lavigne claimed that these actions were part of a school-wide policy of withholding such information from parents.The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the claims against the individual defendants and later granted the Board's motion to dismiss, concluding that Lavigne had not plausibly alleged that the Board had a custom or policy of withholding information. The court found that Lavigne's allegations were based on conclusions unsupported by factual allegations and that the Board's statements did not constitute active approval of the individual defendants' actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that Lavigne had not plausibly alleged the existence of an unwritten policy or custom of withholding information from parents. The court noted that the Board's written policies encouraged parental involvement and that the statements made by the Board and school officials did not support the inference of an unwritten policy of withholding. The court also found that the Board's decision to renew the contract of the social worker involved did not amount to ratification of the alleged conduct. Thus, the appellate court concluded that Lavigne had failed to show that the Board was responsible for any constitutional violation. View "Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board" on Justia Law

A graduate student and resident advisor (RA) at the University of Massachusetts, John Doe, was found responsible for sexual misconduct by the University in 2023. The University sanctioned him based on complaints from four female RAs about his interactions with them. Doe filed a federal lawsuit against the University, its trustees, and the members of the hearing panel, alleging that the University violated his First Amendment rights by punishing him for protected speech and expressive conduct. He sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court considered on a "case stated" basis, consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits.The district court ruled against Doe, finding that his First Amendment rights had not been violated. The court applied the Tinker standard, determining that the University's actions were justified because Doe's conduct caused or would cause a substantial disruption and invaded the rights of others. The court also held that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for monetary damages. Doe appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the record lacked evidence of substantial disruption to the academic environment or the complainants' jobs. The court also concluded that Doe's conduct did not constitute a pervasive pattern of unwelcome conduct. Therefore, the court held that the University's actions were not justified under the Tinker standard. However, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Individual Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, as the law was not clearly established that their actions violated Doe's First Amendment rights. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Doe v. University of Massachusetts" on Justia Law

In 2014, Tyrone Walker, who had been in solitary confinement for punitive reasons since 2000, was placed in solitary confinement as a preventative measure by prison officials, based on a determination that he posed a threat to prison security. The officials were constitutionally obligated to conduct regular, meaningful reviews of Walker’s solitary confinement. Walker argued that the reviews he received were not constitutionally meaningful, as they did not adequately assess his current threat level or consider his behavior over time.The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Walker demonstrated no genuine issues of material fact regarding the constitutional meaningfulness of his reviews. The court also decided that all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established right of Walker’s had been violated during the review process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the reviews Walker received during his continued solitary confinement were not constitutionally meaningful. The court noted that the reviews were repetitive and rote, failed to consider Walker’s positive behavior, and often used circular logic to justify his continued confinement. Additionally, the court found that the delays in completing and providing the reviews to Walker raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the meaningfulness of the process.The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing that the focus was on the procedural due process rights of Walker, not the substantive outcome of his confinement. The court also determined that it was premature to grant qualified immunity to the defendants at this stage. View "Walker v. Bellnier" on Justia Law

Jessica Bates, a devout Christian and widowed mother of five, applied to adopt children through the Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS). Her application was denied because she could not comply with Oregon Administrative Rule § 413-200-0308(2)(k), which requires prospective adoptive parents to "respect, accept, and support" the sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression of children. Bates objected to using preferred pronouns and taking children to medical appointments for gender transitions, citing her religious beliefs. She sued, claiming the policy violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Bates's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The court found that the policy was neutral and generally applicable, thus subject to rational basis review, which it survived. The court also concluded that the policy, as applied to Bates, compelled and restricted speech based on content and viewpoint, triggering strict scrutiny. However, it held that the policy was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in protecting LGBTQ children.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Oregon's application of § 413-200-0308(2)(k) to Bates triggered strict scrutiny for both her free speech and free exercise claims. The court found that the policy restricted and compelled speech based on content and viewpoint and was not neutral or generally applicable. The court concluded that Oregon's policy was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as less restrictive means were available to protect LGBTQ children. The court remanded the case with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining ODHS from applying the rule to Bates in deeming her ineligible for certification as an adoptive parent. View "Bates v. Pakseresht" on Justia Law

Zachary Hebb challenged a municipal ordinance in Asheville, North Carolina, that prohibited the use of amplified sound within 150 feet of a medical clinic during its operating hours. Hebb, who regularly protested outside a Planned Parenthood clinic, argued that the ordinance infringed on his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He preferred using a sound amplifier to communicate his message without yelling. After being cited for violating the ordinance, Hebb filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory relief, a permanent injunction, nominal damages, and attorneys' fees.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially granted Hebb a preliminary injunction, finding that the ordinance likely violated his First Amendment rights and was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denied Asheville's motions to dismiss and later granted Hebb's motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the ordinance and awarding nominal damages for the due process claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Asheville's motions to dismiss Hebb's First Amendment claim but reversed the summary judgment in Hebb's favor, finding that there were disputed factual and legal questions that warranted further consideration. The court held that the ordinance was content-neutral and served a significant government interest in protecting patients from harmful noise. However, it concluded that the entry of summary judgment was premature.Regarding Hebb's due process claim, the Fourth Circuit held that the 2021 version of the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to prevent Hebb from using a plastic cone. The court found that the ordinance provided adequate notice of what conduct was prohibited and included sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision on the due process claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss it. View "Hebb v. City of Asheville" on Justia Law