Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The 1976 Magnuson–Stevens Act contemplated “[a] national program for the conservation and management of the fishery resources of the United States,” 16 U.S.C. 1801(a)(6), and established the United States 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). A 2007 amendment established national criteria for quota-based fishing programs, (limited access privilege programs) and authorized the quota-based fishing permits and licenses at issue in this Fifth Amendment takings claim, in which fishing businesses challenged four different permitting, licensing, and endorsement requirementsThe Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit for lack of a cognizable property interest in the fishing endorsements, licenses, and permits, separate from or appurtenant to their fishing vessels. Precedent establishes that fishing permits and licenses issued under the Act are revocable privileges, not compensable property interests. The Magnuson–Stevens Act refers to “congressional intent not to confer any right, title, or interest, and to preserve the government’s authority to revoke privileges enjoyed in” fishing licenses and permits. The National Marine Fisheries Service’s regulations did not create compensable property rights in permits or licenses. licenses; permits did not have the essential characteristics of compensable property—transferability and the right to exclude others. There is no inherent right in vessel ownership to fish within the EEZ. View "Fishermen's Finest, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the conclusion of the district court that the more than three-year delay between Defendant's arrest and his subsequent criminal trial did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial, holding that Defendant did not receive his guaranteed right to a speedy trial.Defendant was charged with assault with a weapon. After facing a lengthy wait to be evaluated for his mental fitness to stand trial Defendant received a bed at the Montana State Hospital (MSH), where his fitness for trial improved. Defendant's fitness, however, decompensated after he was sent back to jail, leading to a second admission to MSH before the case finally went to trial. A jury found Defendant guilty, and the district court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1,179-day delay between Defendant's arrest and trial, due to systemic institutional problems, violated Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Allery" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the order of the district court entering summary judgment for the Town of Pittsfield, New Hampshire and dismissing Plaintiff's allegation that the Town's zoning ordinance, as applied by the Town's Board of Selectmen, was unconstitutionally vague and violated his First Amendment and equal protection rights, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff applied for and received a permit to keep a trailer on his property for storage purposes. In 2016 and 2017, the Board granted Plaintiff permit extensions. In 2018, the Board denied Plaintiff's request for a third extension and required him to remove the trailer from his property. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action, invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983 and challenging the ordinance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Town. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court provided the requisite notice that it would reach Plaintiff's claim of content or viewpoint discrimination at summary judgment and properly entered summary judgment on this claim; (2) the Town's application of the ordinance against Defendant did not violate Defendant's equal protection rights; and (3) the ordinance, as applied by the Town, was not unconstitutionally vague. View "McCoy v. Town of Pittsfield, NH" on Justia Law

This case asks whether a town’s alleged policy that bans video livestreaming certain interactions with law enforcement violates the First Amendment. It also asks whether a police officer who, during a traffic stop, attempted to stop a passenger from livestreaming the encounter may be successfully sued under Section 1983. Plaintiff sued under Section 1983. He sued the officers in their official capacities—effectively suing the Town of Winterville—for allegedly having a policy that prohibits recording and livestreaming public police interactions in violation of the First Amendment. He also sued an Officer in his individual capacity. The district court awarded Defendants judgment on the pleadings after finding that the policy did not violate the First Amendment. The court dismissed the individual-capacity claim.   The Fourth Circuit vacated in part and affirmed in part. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs seeking redress under Section 1983 for a violation of their constitutional rights must walk through a narrow gate. The doctrines of qualified immunity and Monell liability for local governments substantially diminish their chances. Here, faithful application of the doctrines leads to divergent results. Plaintiff’s has sufficiently alleged that the Town has a policy barring livestreaming one’s own traffic stop that violates the First Amendment. He must now show this policy exists. And, if it does, the Town will have the chance to prove that it does not violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, although the Officer was allegedly acting under the policy that plausibly violates the First Amendment, Plaintiff’s claim against him in his personal capacity fails. View "Dijon Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit in Texas state court against several officials at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, where he remains an inmate. He alleged violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 arising out of a housing transfer and subsequent physical altercation. According to Plaintiff, he had previously been sexually harassed and threatened by inmates in boot camp housing; after asking the sergeant for a transfer to the main building on account of the harassment and threats, he was assigned housing in the main building. Defendants removed the case to federal court, whereupon the district court granted their motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims except for two: his First Amendment retaliation and Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims. The district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice, and he appealed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed in part and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The court reasoned that the facts are consistent with Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant transferred Plaintiff back to boot camp housing to teach him a lesson about seeking housing transfers from other officials, knowing that he faced a substantial risk of being assaulted by the inmates who he had previously reported to prison officials during the officer protection investigation. The court concluded that this statement is sufficient to create a genuine material factual dispute. However, the court did not decide whether, given this factual dispute, Defendant violated clearly established law. View "Luna v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's second petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder, among other crimes. Defendant later filed the postconviction petition at issue, asserting that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a trial before an impartial jury and that his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court summarily denied the petition as time barred and procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Defendant's second postconviction petition as untimely. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of first-degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for less than ten nor more than fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by partially closing the courtroom in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to a public trial, and Defendant waived his right to a public trial; (2) Defendant waived any appellate argument regarding the admissibility of certain evidence; and (3) Defendant failed to prove that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged errors. View "Tarpey v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals who own apartment buildings in New York City subject to the relevant Rent Stabilization Law (RSL), appealed from a district court judgment. The court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs alleged that the RSL, as amended in 2019, effected, facially, an unconstitutional physical and regulatory taking. The District Court held that Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to state claims for violations of the Takings Clause.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that Here, the RSL is part of a comprehensive regulatory regime that governs nearly one million units. Like the broad public interests at issue in Penn Central, here, the legislature has determined that the RSL is necessary to prevent “serious threats to the public health, safety and general welfare.” Further, the Landlords urged the Court to consider two additional, less commonly cited Penn Central factors that, they argued, tend to show that the RSL results in a regulatory taking: noxious use and a lack of a reciprocal advantage. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these factors apply, the claims fail. View "Community Housing Improvement Program v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) Officers found Smallwood unresponsive in his prison cell. When he awoke, Smallwood assured a nurse that he had not taken any drugs, and reminded her that he is diabetic. Smallwood consented to a urinalysis and the results were negative. Dr. Talbot nonetheless ordered blood tests. Smallwood asked for a form to refuse the blood draw. Prison guards stated that he could not refuse, twisted his hands and wrists, placed him in a headlock, and held a taser to his chest while placing him in restraints. They held him down while a lab technician drew his blood. The blood test results revealed no illegal drugs. Smallwood alleges that the officers took him to an observation cell where they subjected him to physical and sexual abuse, then placed him in segregation. Smallwood filed a grievance but did not properly follow IDOC grievance procedures, which require that a prisoner first attempt to informally resolve the problem: a grievant need not seek informal resolution for allegations of sexual abuse. Smallwood filed a timely formal grievance, alleging sexual abuse. Smallwood’s grievance was rejected for failing to show that he had tried to informally resolve his complaint. Smallwood expressed an inability to understand the grievance process. A year later, Smallwood's attempt at informal resolution was rejected as untimely.Smallwood sued, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding unresolved, material factual questions regarding Smallwood’s ability to make use of the grievance procedure. View "Smallwood v. Williams" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence that he possessed an AR-15 assault rifle and many rounds of ammunition, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the evidence at issue.At issue was whether Defendant showed an objectively reasonable privacy interest in the items seized from a case he had left in the home of his former domestic partner and their minor son. Law enforcement officers retrieved the case after responding to Defendant's former partner's domestic disturbance call when Defendant entered the residence, assaulted her, and left her and the child wounded. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he had a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the case. The district court denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. View "United States v. John" on Justia Law