Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Rutherford County, Tennessee law enforcement officers raided 23 stores selling cannabidiol (CBD) products because they falsely believed that such products were illegal under state law. The charges were dropped; the products were legal under both state and federal law. The shop owners sued the responsible law enforcement agencies, asserting violations of their constitutional rights and conspiracy to violate those rights. All but one of the shop owners ultimately settled. The district court then granted summary judgment to the County and Sheriff Fitzhugh.On interlocutory appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed. The plaintiff presented evidence to support a claim of 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil conspiracy. Fitzhugh’s alleged behavior reflects interdependent decision-making with the Smyrna Police Department (SPD) and the DA’s office through the planning and execution of the raids, calculated to achieve an unconstitutional outcome. Although SPD’s raid of the plaintiff’s business was the overt act that directly caused the plaintiff’s alleged injury, holding the county defendants liable for their alleged involvement in the overall plan that led to that raid is the kind of conspiratorial behavior at the heart of section 1983 civil conspiracy claims. A jury could reasonably conclude that there was a “single plan” in which Fitzhugh participated. View "Rieves v. Smyrna, Tennessee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, holding that the did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for discovery, and there was no error in the proceedings below warranting a new trial.Defendant's conviction arose from a police investigation into a report of a shooting in a crowded residential area and the ensuing discovery of a firearm allegedly discarded by Defendant. Before trial, Defendant filed a motion for discovery of police reports that he argued was relevant and material to the question of whether the investigation was motivated by race, in violation of his constitutional equal protection rights. The trial judge denied the motion, and Defendant was subsequently convicted. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion for discovery; and (2) some of the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument were improper, but the remarks did not warrant a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Cuffee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his person during a stop and pat-frisk, holding that the new standard adopted in Commonwealth v. Long, 485 Mass. 711, 724-725 (2020), is applicable in the context of police investigations such as pedestrian stops in addition motor vehicle stops.Defendant was indicted on firearm-related charges after he was stopped by police officers while walking. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the stop was unconstitutional because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion and because statistical evidence proved the officers were more likely to stop Black members of the community than individuals of other races. In addressing Defendant's equal protection challenge, the lower court presumed that this Court's standard for establishing an equal protection claim under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which was adopted to provide a defendant a more accessible path to pursuing an equal protection claim in the context of a motor vehicle stop, applied equally to this pedestrian stop challenge. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the new standard adopted in Long is applicable in this case; and (2) the evidence supported the trial court's determination that the officers stopped Defendant to investigate his involvement in the shooting and not because of his race. View "Commonwealth v. Robinson-Van Rader" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was detained beyond the expiration of his sentence because Department officials gave him credit for time served in pre-trial detention but only for one (rather than both) of his two consecutive sentences. That was the right thing to do under the law, then in effect. But Plaintiff was entitled to the more generous provision in effect at the time his sentence was entered. As a result, he served over a year longer than he should have. After his release, Plaintiff brought suit against various Louisiana officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, among other claims. This appeal concerns only one of those claims: Plaintiff’s claim against the head of the Department, Secretary James LeBlanc (“Defendant”). Defendant appealed the denial of qualified immunity, arguing that his conduct wasn’t objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law.   The Fifth Circuit reversed. The court explained that while the right to timely release is clearly established, Plaintiff does not show how Defendant’s conduct was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Plaintiff contends that Defendant was objectively unreasonable because he failed to assign the task of calculating release dates to an attorney. But nothing in the Constitution requires that such actions be undertaken by a member of the bar. View "Taylor v. LeBlanc" on Justia Law

Fox TV obtained permission from Superintendent Dixon to film scenes for the television series, Empire, at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center. Fox used the Center’s outdoor yard, visitation room, medical office, and certain living spaces for five days and returned to film retakes on seven additional days. During filming, several housing pods housed more detainees than the Center’s policy suggested; some detainees exercised indoors instead of in the outdoor yard; some classes were moved; and the Center postponed or canceled some extra‐curricular activities and held visitation hours in a smaller room.Three detainees filed a proposed class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted Dixon partial summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds because the plaintiffs had not shown “a clearly established right to be free of the arguably modest disruptions” but did not dismiss state law claims. The court reasoned that Dixon acted as the detainees’ guardian and had a fiduciary duty to “protect [them] from harm.” Under the holding, Dixon would only be entitled to sovereign immunity on the state law breach of fiduciary duty claim if he proved that he did not violate the detainees’ constitutional rights. On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that Dixon is immune from suit under the Illinois State Lawsuit Immunity Act. The alleged wrongful conduct arose from decisions Dixon made within the scope of his authority. View "T. S. v. County of Cook" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ruling that Mont. Code Ann. 50-20-109(1)(a), which restricts providers of abortion care to physicians and physician assistants (PAs), violates a woman's fundamental right of privacy, guaranteed by the Montana Constitution, to seek abortion care from a qualified health care provider of her choosing, holding that there was no error.In reaching its decision, the district court concluded that the State failed to "clearly and convincingly demonstrate a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk which justifies interfering with a patient's fundamental right[....]to choose the health care provider who performs the [abortion] procedure[.]" The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there is no medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk for the State to restrict the availability of abortion care by preventing Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) from performing abortions; and (2) therefore, Montanans have the right to seek abortion care from certified APRNs. View "Weems v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff previously worked for the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). As part of an internal investigation into Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct, SUB restricted Plaintiff from speaking with potential witnesses and other SUB employees regarding the subject of the investigation while it was underway. Plaintiff sued SUB, certain SUB employees, and SUB’s retained counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that the investigation-related speech restrictions violated the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and Plaintiff appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The panel held that the communication restriction complained of by Plaintiff did not violate the First Amendment because it did not limit Plaintiff’s ability to speak about matters of public concern. Nothing in Defendants’ instructions barred him from speaking about any alleged mismanagement at the Springfield Utility Board or other topics that would potentially relate to a matter of public concern. Rather, the restrictions merely barred him from personally discussing his own alleged violation of Springfield Utility Board policies—a matter of private, personal concern—with potential witnesses or fellow Springfield Utility Board employees. View "TODD ROBERTS V. SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals on a survival claim brought by the estate of Clark Davis against United Rentals North America, Inc., rendered a take nothing judgment on this claim, and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial on the remaining claims, holding that racial considerations impermissibly tainted the selection of the jury in the underlying trial.During jury selection, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that "the African-American female was the most favorable juror in this case," and this announced preference was consistent with Plaintiffs' peremptory strikes. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs, and the district court awarded $5 million to Davis's estate. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a new trial was required because counsel stated a racial preference in jury selection, the peremptory strikes were consistent with that preference, and the district court did not remedy the issue. View "United Rentals North America, Inc. v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this direct appeal brought by the Iowa Department of Human Services (HDS) from a district court ruling requiring Iowa's Medicaid program to pay for sex reassignment surgery for two transgender adults and affirmed the denial of fees on cross-appeal, holding that the appeal was moot.Petitioners, adult transgender Iowans who were denied preauthorization for sex reassignment surgeries through the Medicaid program, appealed their managed care organization's denial of coverage to DHS. DHS affirmed the denials. The district court reversed, concluding that Iowa Code 216.7(3), an amendment to the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) violated the guarantee of equal protection under the Iowa Constitution. DHS appealed, but, thereafter, agreed to pay for Petitioners' surgeries. The Supreme Court dismissed the direct appeal as moot and affirmed the district court's order denying any fee award, holding that the court erred in denying Petitioners' request for attorney fees. View "Vasquez v. Iowa Dep't of Human Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, brought a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging sexual abuse by Defendant, a pastor at a church Plaintiff attended more than thirty years ago. A magistrate judge granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then recommended that the case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In response, Plaintiff submitted a filing seeking to voluntarily dismiss the case and to receive a refund of his court fees. The district court, rather than treating Plaintiff’s filing as a self-executing notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 referred the matter to the magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that Plaintiff’s requests be denied. The magistrate judge made that recommendation in an attempt to further the purposes of the “three-strikes provision” of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and this appeal followed.  Plaintiff, represented by counsel on appeal, contends that the district court erred by invoking the PLRA’s purposes to trump his clear right to voluntarily dismiss the action under Rule 41.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment. The court explained that it found no language in the PLRA purporting to limit or condition a plaintiff’s right to voluntarily dismiss an action “without a court order” under Rule 41(a) in the prisoner-litigation context. Plaintiff acted within the bounds of Rule 41(a) by filing a notice of dismissal before Defendant responded. That notice was effective immediately upon filing and deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case. View "Jason Elliott Smith v. Delwyn Gerald Williams" on Justia Law