Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Convicted of the 1996 strangulation murder of Stites, Reed was sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Reed’s state and federal habeas petitions were unsuccessful. In 2014, Reed sought DNA testing of the evidence. The prosecutor refused to test most of the evidence. The court denied Reed’s motion; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, citing chain of custody issues.Reed filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting that Texas’s stringent chain-of-custody requirement was unconstitutional and effectively foreclosed DNA testing for individuals convicted before the promulgation of rules governing the handling and storage of evidence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, finding that the two-year statute of limitations began to run when the Texas trial court denied Reed’s motion, not when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied rehearing.The Supreme Court reversed. The statute of limitations began to run at the end of the state-court litigation. Establishing a procedural due process violation requires proof of deprivation by state action of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property, and inadequate state process. The claim is not complete when the deprivation occurs but only when the state fails to provide due process. Texas’s alleged failure to provide Reed with a fundamentally fair process was complete when the state litigation ended and deprived Reed of his asserted liberty interest in DNA testing. If the statute of limitations began to run after a state trial court’s denial of the motion, the prisoner would likely continue to pursue state court relief while filing a federal section 1983 suit. That parallel litigation would run counter to principles of federalism, comity, consistency, and judicial economy. If any due process flaws lurk in the DNA testing law, the state appellate process may cure those flaws, rendering a federal suit unnecessary. View "Reed v. Goertz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of being an accessory before the fact to kidnapping and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant, a police officer, provided several specific items to James Feeney, his drug supplier, at Feeney's request, including information about the victim as well as Defendant's police badge, gun holster, and handcuffs. Feeney provided the information and items to Scott Morrison and Alfred Ricci, who convinced the victim they were at his house to complete a mandatory drug test. The pair kidnapped him, and Feeney murdered him. Defendant was convicted of being an accessory before the fact to kidnapping. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and the denial of Defendant's postconviction motion, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant shared Feeney's intent that the kidnapping take place; (2) the trial judge's instructions to the jury were without error; and (3) there was no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Schoener" on Justia Law

People working part-time may qualify for weekly unemployment benefits, but must accurately report their income so the Indiana Department of Workforce Development can reduce their benefits accordingly. A claimant who knowingly fails to disclose earnings on a weekly application must repay all benefits received for that week and is subject to a civil penalty of 25% of that forfeited amount. Grashoff omitted her part-time income on 24 weekly applications. The Department determined that she knowingly violated the law and assessed a forfeiture and penalty totaling $11,190. An ALJ affirmed the sanction. Grashoff did not seek state judicial review but filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that the sanction violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The district court rejected the claim, classifying the entire forfeiture as remedial rather than punitive. The penalty is a punitive sanction subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny but is not grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Grashoff conceded that the difference between the benefits she received and the smaller amount she would have received had she reported her income is purely remedial. The remaining forfeiture amount, even when considered together with the 25% penalty, is not a grossly disproportionate sanction for Grashoff’s knowing violations of the law. View "Grashoff v. Payne" on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed a one-year contract to teach criminal justice courses at Spartanburg Methodist College (SMC). Less than a year later, SMC decided not to renew Plaintiff’s contract and terminated her shortly thereafter. Plaintiff brought a mix of state and federal law claims against SMC, essentially arguing that her contract nonrenewal and termination were unlawful. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of SMC on all federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Plaintiff appealed. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Plaintiff accused SMC of discrimination, retaliation, and engaging in an unlawful health inquiry. Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (Title IX), she accused SMC of retaliation.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in analyzing the case, it becomes clear that Plaintiff’s retaliation claims cannot succeed. SMC offers nonretaliatory reasons for not renewing Plaintiff’s contract and terminating her employment, and she is unable to demonstrate that SMC’s reasons are pretextual. Further, the court explained that Plaintiff’s claim of pretext is undermined by the fact that the primary decision-makers at SMC were not aware of Plaintiff’s ADA or Title IX-protected activity. Second, any notion of pretext is further dispelled by the fact that SMC’s explanations have been consistent throughout. Moreover, the court explained that Plaintiff cannot show that SMC refused to make an accommodation because she cannot show that she ever properly requested one. Her failure-to-accommodate claim fails for this reason. View "Summer Lashley v. Spartanburg Methodist College" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual contact, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a continuance; (2) there was no constitutional error in the trial court's ruling requiring that participants in Defendant's trial be masked; (3) there was no prosecutorial error in either the State's opening or closing argument or in the State's rebuttal argument; and (4) Defendant's claims of evidentiary error were unavailing. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

In 2010, Keller and others broke into a Shelby County house occupied by Morrow and Jones and two minor children. Keller threatened the occupants with a gun while demanding money. One assailant repeatedly struck Morrow in the head. All the assailants ransacked the house. One child hid and called 911. After his conviction Keller sought a new trial, raising several challenges to his convictions and sentence; he did not raise a double-jeopardy claim. For the first time, on appeal to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, Keller argued his convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, in that his convictions for attempted especially aggravated robbery and aggravated assault of Morrow were for the same offense, and that all of his convictions should have merged into a single conviction for aggravated robbery of Morrow. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeal found that Keller waived his double-jeopardy claim by not raising it in his motion for a new trial as required by Tennessee’s procedural rules. Keller had acknowledged the waiver. Considering Keller’s double-jeopardy claim under plain-error review, the court held that the double-jeopardy claim failed.After unsuccessfully seeking post-conviction relief in state court, Keller filed a federal habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of his federal 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition on the double jeopardy claim. Keller, by his own concession, procedurally defaulted his double-jeopardy claim. View "Keller v. Genovese" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, one day before the expiration of the statutory limitations period, initiated suit pro se against federal prison officials on behalf of his deceased mother’s estate. Plaintiff, who had unsuccessfully attempted to retain counsel before filing suit, did not know that he could not represent his mother’s estate pro se and needed, instead, to secure legal representation. Several months later, but before responsive pleadings were filed by Defendants, he retained counsel who entered an appearance and filed an amended complaint on behalf of the estate reasserting the original cause of action, asserting additional causes of action, and adding the United States as a defendant. Plaintiff assumed that retaining counsel and filing an amended complaint corrected his original mistake. The district court disagreed and dismissed the suit.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed. The court explained that while Plaintiff was not legally authorized under 28 U.S.C. Section 1654 to represent the Estate pro se, the district court erred in dismissing the case without first providing Plaintiff an opportunity to rectify his mistake by obtaining counsel. Once properly represented, the Estate was entitled to file the amended complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1). Further, the FTCA claims asserted therein were timely, and the Bivens claims relate back to the date of filing of the original complaint. Therefore, the Estate’s claims can proceed. View "Grant Sunny Iriele v. Richard Carroll Griffin, et al" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for misdemeanor interference with a peace officer stemming from his act of resisting when police officers entered his home without a warrant to arrest him for a misdemeanor crime, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Defendant's conviction could not stand.On appeal, Defendant argued that the officers' warrantless entry into his home was unlawful, and therefore, the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the officers in this case were not "engaged in the lawful performance" of their official duties when they entered Defendant's home without a warrant, as required to convict him under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 6-5-204(a); and (2) because the officers' warrantless entry into Defendant's home was per se unreasonable, the warrantless entry into Defendant's home to execute a warrantless arrest violated Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment. View "Woods v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from Plaintiff’s suit against the City of Harahan (“the City”) for its alleged deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. In October 2019, the Harahan Police Department (“HPD”) Chief of Police determined that Plaintiff was guilty of numerous offenses. Plaintiff was entitled to a fifteen-day appeal window of the Chief’s disciplinary determinations. Plaintiff exercised his right to appeal a week after the charges. However, the Chief emailed the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s office (“JPDA”) to inform it of his disciplinary action against Plaintiff before he exercised his right. Plaintiff brought a civil rights suit against the City for violation of his procedural due process rights, stigma-plus-infringement, and defamation. He included Louisiana state law claims for defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence. The City moved to dismiss his Section 1983 claims under Rule 12(c). The primary issue is whether the district court erroneously determined that Plaintiff had a liberty interest in his “future employment as a law enforcement officer.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the City’s Rule 12(c) motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s due process claim. The court explained that Plaintiff’s alleged liberty interest in his career in law enforcement has no basis in Supreme Court or Fifth Circuit precedent. Moreover, he does not provide a different constitutional anchor for this proposed liberty interest. Because he fails to state facts supporting the violation of a cognizable liberty interest, he fails to plead a due process violation. Furthermore, the court declined to address the adequacy of the process he received. View "Adams v. City of Harahan" on Justia Law

During a routine traffic stop, Houston Police Officer fatally shot a man. Plaintiffs, including the parents and estate of the victim, brought multiple claims against the officer who fatally shot the man, two other police officers, and the city. The individual defendants claimed qualified immunity. The district court, in ruling on a motion to dismiss in response to Plaintiffs’ complaint, dismissed Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and requested reassignment to a different district judge. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Plaintiffs that the dismissal of the Section 1983 claims against Defendant for excessive force, denial of medical care, and unlawful arrest was an error. The court reversed and remanded those claims. The court explained that taking as true that Defendant had no reason to believe the man was armed and that the shooting officer knew the man was seriously injured and likely could not move, a police officer would know, under these precedents, that to handcuff the man was an arrest without probable cause under clearly established law. The court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims is affirmed. The court denied, as moot, Plaintiffs’ request for reassignment to a new judge. View "Allen v. Hays" on Justia Law