Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Early in the morning, a security guard at a hotel in Oklahoma City called 911 to report an unauthorized individual, Dawawn McCoy, refusing to leave a guest’s room and appearing unable to walk. Sergeant Cassidy of the Oklahoma City Police Department responded, found McCoy noncompliant and apparently under the influence, and requested medical evaluation. After medical personnel determined McCoy did not need immediate attention and he refused care, police were instructed to arrest him for trespassing. Cassidy called for additional officers, and together the officers attempted to handcuff McCoy, who resisted physically by pulling his hands in and kicking. The officers used pepper spray and a taser to subdue him. Once handcuffed, McCoy was rolled onto his stomach and restrained further. For approximately ninety seconds, according to the district court’s findings, McCoy had stopped resisting but officers continued to apply force by holding a knee on his back and pressing his legs upward. McCoy stopped responding verbally and showed signs of medical distress. Officers later attempted resuscitation and administered Narcan, but McCoy died six days later in the hospital.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, LaQuita Bruner, as administrator of McCoy’s estate, brought suit against the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the deliberate indifference claim but denied it as to the excessive force claim, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude excessive force was used after McCoy was subdued.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. The court held that, based on the facts found by the district court, the officers’ continued use of force after McCoy was subdued was objectively unreasonable and violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bruner v. Cassidy" on Justia Law

Police officers in Rosenberg, Texas conducted a high-risk stop of a white Dodge Charger matching the description of a vehicle involved in a report of armed suspects. The only occupants were Michael Lewis and Regina Armstead, an elderly couple. Lewis had a dialysis-related stent in his left forearm, which could be damaged by placing handcuffs on that arm. During the stop, Lewis was handcuffed for about six minutes, reportedly experiencing pain. He later discovered his stent had been damaged and required surgery. Armstead informed an officer that Lewis was a dialysis patient, and Lewis claimed he told officers about his condition both before and after being handcuffed, though his statements were inconsistent.Lewis and Armstead filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the City, the police department, and the officers, including an excessive force claim. After a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court granted qualified immunity on most claims but denied it on Lewis’s excessive force claim against the five officers, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to when the officers were informed about Lewis’s medical condition. The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the officers did not violate any clearly established law by briefly handcuffing Lewis during a high-risk stop, regardless of whether they had advance notice of his medical condition. The court found that relevant precedent did not place the constitutional question beyond debate under the circumstances, and thus, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. View "Lewis v. Delgado" on Justia Law

Adrian Roberts, a military veteran suffering from severe mental health issues, was the subject of an involuntary commitment order after his wife raised concerns about his safety and possession of weapons. Law enforcement officers, including a specially trained response team, attempted to execute the order, initially trying to persuade Adrian to leave his home peacefully. When he refused, the team forcibly entered his residence. Shortly after entry, Deputy Evans shot and killed Adrian. The circumstances surrounding the shooting were disputed: Evans claimed Adrian charged at officers with a machete, while Adrian’s wife alleged he was shot in the back while facing away.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina reviewed the case after Adrian’s wife brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and unlawful entry. The district court granted Evans qualified immunity and summary judgment on the unlawful entry claim but denied both on the excessive force claim. The court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed, particularly regarding whether Adrian posed an immediate threat or was resisting arrest, and relied on the autopsy report suggesting Adrian may have been shot from behind. Because these factual disputes remained, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find Evans violated Adrian’s clearly established rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s decision was based on unresolved factual disputes rather than purely legal questions. The court emphasized it could not weigh evidence or resolve factual disputes at this stage, and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Roberts v. Evans" on Justia Law

During a shopping trip at Walmart, William Montgomery was stopped by a store employee and subsequently by Officer Armando Cruz, who suspected shoplifting after Montgomery declined to show a receipt. Officer Cruz directed Montgomery to raise his hands, handcuffed him, and proceeded to search his pockets. Without conducting a pat-down, Officer Cruz reached into Montgomery’s pockets, removing a prescription bottle and a wallet, and looked for Montgomery’s driver’s license. Montgomery was detained briefly, but Walmart employees determined he had paid for the items and he was released.Montgomery filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that Officer Cruz violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his pockets and wallet without proper justification. Officer Cruz moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, arguing that his actions did not violate clearly established law. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes existed regarding whether Officer Cruz had patted Montgomery down before reaching into his pockets and whether Montgomery had consented to the search of his wallet.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial of summary judgment de novo. The court held that, accepting the district court’s factual conclusions, Officer Cruz’s search of Montgomery’s pockets without a pat-down or arrest constituted a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court further concluded that the subsequent search of Montgomery’s wallet was not justified by consent, as any statement made by Montgomery after the illegal search could not retroactively legitimize the search. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Officer Cruz. View "Montgomery v. Cruz" on Justia Law

In 2023, Wyoming enacted two laws restricting abortion: the Life is a Human Right Act, which broadly banned abortion procedures with limited exceptions, and a separate statute prohibiting the prescription or use of drugs to induce abortions, also with exceptions. These laws imposed criminal and civil penalties on violators, excluding the pregnant person. After the laws took effect, several plaintiffs—including medical professionals, non-profit organizations, and an individual woman—challenged the statutes in District Court of Teton County, arguing they violated Article 1, Section 38 of the Wyoming Constitution, which guarantees each competent adult the right to make their own health care decisions.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the challenged laws unreasonably and unnecessarily infringed on the constitutional right to make health care decisions, and issued a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the abortion restrictions. The State of Wyoming appealed directly to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Wyoming Supreme Court, exercising de novo review, held that the decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy is a health care decision protected by Article 1, Section 38. The Court determined that this provision confers a fundamental right, and that statutes restricting it must satisfy strict scrutiny: the State must show such laws are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means. The majority found that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the abortion restrictions and their exceptions were the least restrictive means of protecting prenatal life. Accordingly, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding the 2023 abortion laws unconstitutional under the Wyoming Constitution. View "State of Wyoming v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Several individuals and organizations sought to circulate a petition to place a campaign finance ordinance on Houston’s ballot, but the city’s charter at that time required petition circulators to be both residents and registered voters of Houston. The plaintiffs did not meet these requirements. They notified the city of their intent to circulate petitions and challenge the constitutionality of the residency and voter registration requirements. The city initially did not clarify its position but later stated it would not enforce the challenged provisions. Despite this, the plaintiffs filed suit in federal court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, arguing that the requirements were unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas first granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the requirements. After the petition circulation period ended, the court dismissed the claims as moot following a stipulation by the parties. The plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was not moot, and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court granted the plaintiffs declaratory relief and, after the city repealed the challenged provisions, awarded the plaintiffs attorneys’ fees as prevailing parties. However, in a subsequent appeal, a different Fifth Circuit panel concluded there was no case or controversy because all parties agreed the provisions were unconstitutional, vacated the judgment, and remanded for dismissal.On remand, the district court vacated the attorneys’ fees award and ordered reimbursement to the city. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed this ruling, holding that after the prior appellate decision vacated the underlying merits judgment for lack of a case or controversy, there was no basis for a fee award under Rule 60(b)(5). The court also clarified that the city was not required to appeal the fee award directly, and the plaintiffs’ claims of prejudice were unavailing. View "Pool v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

After the Texas Legislature passed the Election Protection and Integrity Act of 2021 (“S.B.1”), a sweeping law that amended numerous aspects of the state’s election procedures, multiple groups of plaintiffs—including civil rights and voter advocacy organizations—challenged thirty-eight provisions of the law. They alleged violations of various constitutional amendments, the Voting Rights Act (VRA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act, naming state officials including the Texas Secretary of State and Attorney General as defendants.In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and lack of standing. The district court addressed the motions on a provision-by-provision basis, concluding that the Secretary and Attorney General were sufficiently connected to the enforcement of most challenged provisions to overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young, and that plaintiffs had standing to sue. It denied the motions to dismiss for the majority of the claims, although it dismissed others as moot, for lack of standing, or for failure to state a claim. The defendants appealed the denials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held it had appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory sovereign immunity appeals. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the VRA claims were not barred by sovereign immunity. For the constitutional and other statutory claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the court determined that the Secretary of State is a proper defendant only for those provisions she directly enforces—such as those involving the design of forms and sanctioning of registrars—and not for those enforced by other officials. Similarly, it held the Attorney General could be sued only for one provision authorizing civil penalties. The court affirmed standing for claims against provisions enforced by these officials. View "Un del Pueblo Entero v. Nelson" on Justia Law

A former lieutenant in a county sheriff’s office was accused of using excessive force during two arrests. After an internal investigation was initiated, he was suspended and scheduled for a public hearing before a merit board, which is required under Indiana law for disciplinary actions. The lieutenant alleged that the sheriff manipulated both the investigation and the merit board to ensure an unfavorable outcome for him. Faced with the possibility of an unfair hearing and negative publicity, the lieutenant negotiated a severance agreement with the sheriff: he would resign and waive his hearing in exchange for withdrawal of the charges and a promise of a neutral reference.Despite the agreement, on the day the resignation became effective, two county prosecutors and the sheriff broadly disclosed the excessive-force allegations to local legal professionals and the lieutenant’s current and prospective employers, including through Brady/Giglio disclosures. The disclosures described the alleged misconduct and claimed issues with the lieutenant’s credibility, leading to his suspension from his part-time job and the loss of other employment opportunities. The lieutenant claimed these actions were part of a premeditated scheme to render him unemployable in law enforcement.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, the complaint was dismissed. The district court found that absolute and qualified immunity protected the prosecutors and that the sheriff could not be liable because the lieutenant had voluntarily resigned, waiving his due process rights. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the prosecutors were entitled to absolute immunity only for Brady/Giglio disclosures made in pending criminal cases. For disclosures to the bar association and employers, neither absolute nor qualified immunity applied at this stage because the alleged coercion through misrepresentation could constitute a procedural due process violation. The appellate court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Martin v. Goldsmith" on Justia Law

The case concerns the fatal shooting of Kwamena Ocran by four Gaithersburg Police Department officers in January 2021. Ocran, who had recently been released from prison and was reported by a confidential informant to be armed, was surveilled by the officers after the informant indicated Ocran might attempt to sell a handgun. When Ocran left an apartment with the informant and was approached by the officers, he fled. The officers pursued him, and during the chase, multiple officers reported seeing a muzzle flash and believed Ocran fired a weapon in their direction. The officers collectively discharged 27 rounds, resulting in Ocran’s death. Forensic evidence revealed Ocran was shot multiple times in the back, and a handgun was found near his body, though no evidence indicated it had been fired.After discovery, Melody Cooper, Ocran’s mother and personal representative, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment and rejected their claim of qualified immunity, finding genuine disputes of material fact existed—particularly regarding whether Ocran pointed or fired his weapon at the officers. The court also denied the officers’ motion for reconsideration.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the officers’ appeal to the extent it challenged the district court’s findings of disputed material facts, as such findings are not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that, accepting the undisputed facts, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right to be free from deadly force when fleeing and not posing a significant threat was clearly established at the time of the incident. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including a jury trial. View "Cooper v. Doyle" on Justia Law

A former assistant principal at a middle school in the Central Valley School District posted a Facebook comment about the Democratic National Convention that included epithets, slurs, and violent language. The post, though made on his private account and shared with Facebook friends, was seen by other school district employees and quickly forwarded to administrators. Within days, the assistant principal was placed on paid administrative leave, prohibited from contacting district staff or students, and ultimately transferred to a non-administrative teaching position. The school district’s investigation revealed additional concerns about derogatory comments he had made at work. The district offered him a voluntary transfer if he signed a release of claims, which he rejected, leading to further administrative proceedings and the final transfer decision.Previously, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reviewed the case. The court initially denied summary judgment to individual administrators on qualified immunity, a decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on interlocutory appeal. After further discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the school district and the individual administrators. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim but held that the district’s interests outweighed the plaintiff’s under the Pickering balancing test. Qualified immunity was also found to apply to the individual defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that while the plaintiff’s Facebook post was private speech on a matter of public concern and he made a prima facie case for retaliation, the school district showed a reasonable prediction of disruption and its interest in maintaining a safe and inclusive environment outweighed the plaintiff’s First Amendment interests. The court also affirmed qualified immunity for the individual administrators. View "Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365" on Justia Law