Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Justin and Jared Brackett own and operate two restaurants in Harwich, Massachusetts: Ember Pizza, Inc. and The Port Restaurant and Bar, Inc. Both establishments held liquor and entertainment licenses issued by the town. Allegedly, they violated Harwich's noise ordinance and Massachusetts COVID-19 restrictions, leading to suspensions and restrictions on their permits. In response, they sued Harwich, several town officials, and other individuals in federal district court, asserting various federal and state claims.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts largely granted the defendants' dispositive motions, rejecting all of Ember and The Port's claims. The court also denied their request for leave to amend their complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile. Ember and The Port then appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that Ember and The Port failed to state a plausible claim for relief under federal law, including their First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and procedural due process claims. The court also found that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims and common law claims, including civil conspiracy and defamation, were inadequately pleaded. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have cured the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "3137, LLC v. Town of Harwich" on Justia Law

Johnnie Franklin Wills, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition challenging his life sentence under West Virginia’s recidivist statute. He argued that the judicially crafted test for determining whether a recidivist life sentence is proportional to the crime is unconstitutionally vague. Wills was convicted of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in 2016, and due to his prior eight felony convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years under the recidivist statute.The West Virginia courts denied Wills relief, stating that the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to their proportionality test. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, distinguishing Wills’s case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, which invalidated certain statutory provisions as unconstitutionally vague. The state court maintained that the proportionality test was clear and did not fall under the same scrutiny as the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya.Wills then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia also denied. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the proportionality test serves as a judicial limitation on the recidivist statute, unlike the statutory mandates in Johnson and Dimaya.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the void-for-vagueness doctrine to judicially crafted proportionality tests. Therefore, Wills’s habeas petition was denied. View "Wills v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law

In the early hours of May 11, 2018, Chasrick Heredia, while celebrating his birthday, had a violent encounter with Manchester Police officers, including Officer Michael Roscoe. Heredia filed a complaint alleging excessive force and other constitutional violations. At trial, the jury found Roscoe liable for excessive force and awarded Heredia nominal and punitive damages. The district court denied Roscoe's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and for remittitur of the punitive damages award.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire presided over the initial trial. The jury found in favor of Heredia on the excessive force claim against Roscoe but in favor of the defendants on all other claims. Roscoe's post-trial motions for JMOL and remittitur were denied by the district court, which concluded that a reasonable juror could find that Roscoe violated Heredia's constitutional rights and that qualified immunity did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Roscoe's motions. The appellate court held that a reasonable jury could find that Roscoe used excessive force when he performed a takedown on Heredia after Heredia had submitted to arrest by raising his hands. The court also held that Roscoe was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that increasing the use of force after an arrestee had submitted was unconstitutional. Additionally, the court found that the punitive damages awarded were justified based on Roscoe's reckless indifference to Heredia's constitutional rights. View "Heredia v. Roscoe" on Justia Law

Two defendants, Martin Field and John Asher, were found to be sexually violent predators (SVPs) by separate juries and committed indefinitely to a state hospital. They were compelled to testify against themselves during their commitment trials. Both argued on appeal that they were similarly situated to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGIs), who are not required to testify against themselves at their commitment trials. They claimed this disparity violated equal protection principles.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, previously found merit in Field's equal protection argument and remanded the case to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County for an evidentiary hearing. The same conclusion was reached for Asher's case by Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and determined that the People had not met their burden to justify the disparate treatment of SVPs and NGIs. Consequently, the court concluded that equal protection principles were violated and ordered new commitment trials for both Field and Asher.The People appealed the new trial orders, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the disparate treatment of SVPs was not justified. The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's orders. The appellate court held that the People had not demonstrated that the testimony of SVPs was more necessary than that of NGIs to justify the disparate treatment under the strict scrutiny standard. The court emphasized that there were sufficient records and other means to evaluate SVPs without compelling their testimony, and thus, the equal protection violation was not justified. View "P. v. Field" on Justia Law

Appellant M.T., a transgender woman, petitioned to legally change her name and gender in 2017, which was granted by the Stanislaus Superior Court in 2018. In 2023, M.T. requested the court to seal the entire record of her name change and gender marker correction, citing harassment and threats after being "outed" on social media. The trial court denied the request to seal the entire record but sealed the application to seal, its supporting documentation, and a physician's letter attached to the initial petition.The trial court found that M.T. had not shown an overriding interest that would overcome the right of public access to the records. The court noted that California's liberal name change policy presumes name changes should be public to prevent fraud and ensure creditors and others can locate individuals who have changed their names. The court also found insufficient evidence that the harassment M.T. experienced was directly linked to the public availability of her court records.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case and concluded that M.T. had demonstrated an overriding privacy and safety interest in sealing her records. The court found that the harassment and threats M.T. experienced were likely linked to the public availability of her records and that there was a substantial probability of future harm if the records remained unsealed. The appellate court determined that M.T.'s privacy and safety interests outweighed the public's right of access to the records and that sealing the entire record was necessary to protect those interests.The appellate court reversed the trial court's order denying the request to seal the entire record and remanded the case with instructions to seal all records that reveal M.T.'s name change or gender marker correction. View "In re M.T." on Justia Law

Robert Mann, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), challenging CHP’s vehicle impound policies. Mann argued that the impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what he characterized as wasteful, unlawful, and unconstitutional law enforcement policies. The trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and to revise its notice form to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a motion for judgment against Youth Justice Coalition and entered judgment in favor of defendant Warren A. Stanley, who had retired before the trial. The court found that Stanley, as a former public officer, was no longer a proper defendant. The trial court issued a permanent injunction requiring CHP to revise its vehicle impound procedures, including considering the ability to pay and revising notice forms.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the injunction improperly required CHP to contravene valid statutes, relied on inapplicable case law, conflicted with the existing statutory scheme, and mandated unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring CHP to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and revise its notice forms, as these requirements were not mandated by due process and conflicted with statutory provisions. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellant. View "Mann v. State of Cal." on Justia Law

Shawn Sheltra, an inmate with the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), filed a formal grievance in March, identifying safety concerns and threats from other inmates in his housing unit. He warned that he would be attacked in April if he did not make an extortion payment. Despite being briefly isolated, Sheltra was returned to his housing unit and was attacked by another inmate in April. He subsequently filed a lawsuit, asserting violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to the defendants' failure to protect him from a known harm.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Sheltra did not file a formal grievance after the April attack. The court also granted summary judgment for the defendants on Sheltra's official-capacity claims, as they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and adopted the continuing-violations doctrine for purposes of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court held that a properly exhausted prison grievance asserting one continuing harm or a single course of conduct can exhaust events arising out of the same alleged violation that occur after the grievance was made. Applying this doctrine, the court concluded that Sheltra's attack was part of the same continuing harm or course of conduct described in his prison grievance before the attack. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment on Sheltra's individual-capacity claims against the defendants. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants on Sheltra's official-capacity claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. View "SHELTRA V. CHRISTENSEN" on Justia Law

Residents of Humboldt County filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County’s system of administrative penalties and fees for cannabis abatement violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The County Code imposes daily fines of $6,000 to $10,000 for illegal cannabis cultivation. Plaintiffs claimed that the County charges landowners based on imprecise data or previous owners' conduct, causing emotional distress and financial burdens due to ongoing penalties and abatement costs.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not paid any fines, rendering the Eighth Amendment claim unripe. The court also found both facial and as-applied challenges untimely, reasoning that the statute of limitations began when the ordinance was enacted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that plaintiffs’ claim under the Excessive Fines Clause was constitutionally ripe and that they had standing due to the imposition of penalties causing concrete injuries, including emotional distress and financial expenses. The court also found that prudential ripeness considerations supported allowing the litigation to proceed. The court determined that the statute of limitations for facial challenges begins when plaintiffs know of the actual injury, not when the ordinance is enacted. Thus, some plaintiffs’ facial challenges were timely. The court also found that several plaintiffs had timely as-applied challenges, except for Cyro Glad, whose claim was untimely.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause, as the penalties and demolition orders were punitive and potentially excessive. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the dismissal only for Cyro Glad’s as-applied claim. View "THOMAS V. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT" on Justia Law

A Black man, known for his career in the NFL, was accused by an intellectually disabled woman of raping her at gunpoint during a babysitting job interview at his home. The jury found him guilty of forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and false imprisonment, with firearm use in the first two offenses. He was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The prosecution argued that the police did not search his house due to his fame and race, suggesting a search would have caused controversy.The trial began in March 2020 but was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resuming three months later. The jury acquitted him on two counts related to the victim's incapacity to consent. The trial court sentenced him in October 2020. The defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution's statements violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 by appealing to racial bias.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the prosecution violated the Racial Justice Act by explicitly asserting that the defendant's race influenced the police's decision not to search his house, implying he gained an undeserved advantage at trial because he was Black. The court concluded that the prosecution's statements constituted racially discriminatory language under Penal Code section 745, subdivision (a)(2). The court held that Penal Code section 745, subdivision (e)(2)(A) precludes harmless error analysis and mandates vacating the conviction and sentence. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for new proceedings consistent with the Racial Justice Act. View "P. v. Stubblefield" on Justia Law

Artell Young, a federal supervised releasee, was subject to a search condition allowing federal probation officers to search his person, vehicle, or home upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or release condition violations. After receiving information that Young was dealing drugs and possessing a firearm, federal probation officers searched his home, finding small amounts of crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, and marijuana. The federal authorities turned the case over to Iowa authorities, leading to Young's conviction on several drug offenses.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Young moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The district court upheld the search, citing the "special needs" exception under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8. The court also noted that the search was conducted by federal officers under federal standards, thus not subject to Iowa constitutional standards. Young was convicted by a jury of three counts of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to six years in prison.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The court held that the constitutionality of the search should be evaluated by the law of the sovereign that conducted the search—in this case, federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the search was lawful under federal standards and that the evidence obtained was admissible in the state prosecution. The court rejected Young's claim of an illegal search and affirmed his convictions. View "State of Iowa v. Young" on Justia Law