Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

Plaintiff was an inmate at Sussex I State Prison (SISP) in 2017. A female correctional officer at SISP charged Plaintiff with a disciplinary offense, alleging that he directed lewd behavior toward her in the prison showers. Plaintiff denied the allegation, contending that security-camera footage would vindicate him. Subsequent to what Plaintiff alleged was a defective disciplinary-hearing process, prison officials found that he committed the offense and transferred him to a maximum-security facility. Based on the defects that Plaintiff perceived in the hearing process and subsequent transfer, he commenced a pro se civil action, levying a procedural due process claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants collectively, the “Prison Officials”). The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s procedural due process claim, then granted summary judgment—pre-discovery—in favor of the Prison Officials on the remaining First Amendment retaliation claim. Defendant appealed.   The Fourth Circuit reversed. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment pre-discovery. Plaintiff properly received a Roseboro notice, explaining his rights to file competing affidavits and other evidence in response to the Prison Officials’ pre-discovery summary judgment motion. Plaintiff failed to respond with such evidentiary filings—or with a Rule 56(d) affidavit. But the district court was on fair notice of potential disputes as to the sufficiency of the summary judgment record. Accordingly, the court wrote that Plaintiff plausibly alleged a violation of his procedural due process rights such that dismissal at the pleading stage was inappropriate. Pre-discovery summary judgment on his First Amendment retaliation claim was likewise inappropriate. View "Emmanuel Shaw v. T. Foreman" on Justia Law

In 2013, University Park hired Bradley as chief of police; in 2014 it renewed his contract for two years. In 2015, after new elections changed the balance of political power, Bradley was fired without notice or an opportunity for a hearing. Bradley filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2016, the district court held that Bradley failed to state a viable procedural due process claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The village had conceded that Bradley had a property interest in his job; firing Bradley without notice or an opportunity to be heard would have deprived him of that property without due process of law. The court rejected the district court’s view that the due process violation by the mayor and village board was “random and unauthorized.”On remand, the district court permitted the defendants to reverse course and argue that Bradley did not have a property interest in his job. The court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to Bradley’s federal claim against the village. The defendants should be held to their unconditional concession. The court remanded for a determination of relief on the due process claim against the village and to allow the district court, if necessary, to address Mayor Covington’s qualified immunity defense. View "Bradley v. Village of University Park" on Justia Law