Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that Defendants, prison officials, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, when despite his numerous complaints over a period of years and a visibly deteriorating condition, they ignored his enlarged prostate. After the district court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, he was left with two claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The remaining officials claimed that they were entitled to qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment. The district court disagreed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the order denying qualified immunity to prison officials. The Ninth Circuit determined that only examination of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis was necessary—whether the right was clearly established at the time of the violation—because doing so would not hamper the development of precedent and both parties expressly acknowledged that this case turned on the second prong. The court reasoned it was clearly established at the time of Plaintiff’s treatment that prison officials violated the constitution when they choose a medically unacceptable course of treatment for the circumstances and a reasonable jury could find that the prison officials did just that. View "LEWIS STEWART V. ROMEO ARANAS" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiffs' claims based on lack of standing, holding that there was no error.In 2019, the General Assembly enacted the Reproductive Privacy Act, R.I. Gen. Laws chapter 4.13 of title 23 (RPA), effectively granting a right to abortion in line with Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Plaintiffs initiated this action seeking to halt the passage of House Bill 5125, Substitute B, which later became the RPA. The trial justice denied relief. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint challenging the General Assembly's authority to enact the RPA. The trial court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. View "Benson v. McKee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of an assault of one of the state's witnesses and that the trial court erred by preventing him from impeaching another witness with evidence of previous criminal offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's exclusion of evidence related to the assault did not violate Defendant's constitutional rights to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against him; and (2) the trial court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation or the rules of evidence by preventing him from impeaching the witness with evidence of certain prior criminal convictions. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court overturned Plaintiff’s Louisiana capital murder conviction, Plaintiff brought Section 1983 and 1988 suits against the state prosecutor and a sheriff’s detective, alleging that they fabricated evidence that deprived him of due process and a fair trial. Defendants, District Attorney and Livingston Parish Sheriff’s, each moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(c) based on assertions of absolute prosecutorial immunity. The district court denied the motions, holding that neither defendant was entitled to absolute immunity for fabricating evidence by intimidating and coercing a juvenile to adopt a false narrative the defendants had concocted out of whole cloth.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that a police officer is not entitled to absolute immunity reserved for a prosecutor. The court held that neither the Detective nor the District attorney is owed absolute immunity under the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. The court reasoned that the Supreme Court has made clear that police officers, even when working in concert with prosecutors, are not entitled to absolute immunity. Nor are prosecutors when they step outside of their role as advocates and fabricate evidence. The facts and actions alleged by the complaint are fundamentally investigatory in nature, and therefore absolute immunity is not warranted. View "Wearry v. Foster" on Justia Law

Various City of Denver officials, and certain State of Colorado officials, authorized and/or conducted sweeps of homeless encampments throughout Denver, Colorado. The advocacy organization, Denver Homeless Out Loud and several people experiencing homelessness (“DHOL Plaintiffs”), alleged these sweeps violated the rights of persons experiencing homelessness and breached a settlement agreement resolving related litigation. The DHOL Plaintiffs therefore filed this putative class action and corresponding motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the federal district court in Colorado to enjoin all sweeps or, in the alternative, require seven days’ advanced notice for all sweeps. The district court granted the motion in part after concluding the DHOL Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim was likely to succeed on the merits. The district court then issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Denver Defendants to satisfy additional notice and procedural requirements before conducting future sweeps. The Denver Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the injunction. Finding that the district court abused its discretion in ruling the first preliminary injunction factor weighed in the DHOL Plaintiffs' favor (and ultimately granting the preliminary injunction), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order. View "Denver Homeless Out Loud, et al. v. Denver, Colorado, et al." on Justia Law

In 2011, Portis and Thompson committed several robberies. Each pleading guilty to conspiring to commit Hobbs Act robbery and using a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c); they “expressly and voluntarily waive[d]” their rights to appeal their convictions or to challenge their convictions through a postconviction proceeding, “including a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255.” Seven years later, the Supreme Court determined, in Davis, that section 924(c)’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague concerning “crimes of violence,” ultimately requiring the government to prove that a defendant met the requirements of the statute’s elements clause. Davis applies retroactively. After Davis, the Sixth Circuit held that a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery does not count as a predicate “crime of violence” under section 924(c);s residual clause or the elements clause.Portis and Thompson sought habeas relief. The government responded that the men waived their rights to file section 2255 motions and that the robberies (rather than the conspiracy) served as the predicate offenses. The district court denied the motions on the merits. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal. The plea agreement, in no uncertain terms, waives each defendant’s right to challenge his convictions in “a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2255. View "Thompson v. United States" on Justia Law

Morgan was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, ADHD, and depression. While incarcerated at Wayne County Jail, charged with assaulting a prison guard, Morgan suffered from hallucinations, heard voices, and attempted suicide. She was transferred to UCH, a private entity contracted to provide mental health services. Usually, three deputies and two-three UCH employees were present in the UCH ward. Despite blind spots, unlocked bedroom doors, and the necessity that deputies leave the ward to use the restroom, there had never been a reported incident at UCH involving sexual activity between inmates until November 15, 2005. That afternoon, Morgan asked UCH employee Williams for toilet paper. Other staff had left the ward to use the restroom and for lunch breaks. When Williams returned, he discovered Morgan n the room of a male inmate, Miles, apparently engaged in sexual intercourse. Morgan stated that she took “responsibility for everything.” Morgan and Miles declined to continue the investigation. In August 2006, Morgan gave birth to a child, apparently fathered by Miles. Morgan filed suit.The district court granted the county governmental immunity on her state law claims, found that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity, rejected a claim of supervisory liability, and held that Morgan’s Monell claims failed as a matter of law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. There was no evidence of deliberate indifference nor authority for the proposition that the Eighth Amendment requires men and women to be housed separately. View "Morgan v. Wayne County, Michigan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought his civil rights suit against the County of Ravalli and others. The County filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. While its motion was still pending, the County made Plaintiff a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $50,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees. Before Rule 68’s fourteen-day window had closed, the district court granted the summary judgment motion. But the court did not enter final judgment. Rather, it said that judgment would be entered “in due course” after it issued a reasoned opinion. Within an hour of the entry of this order, Plaintiff accepted the County’s offer of judgment. The district court held that, under Rule 68, it was bound by the offer of judgment and entered judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $50,000 plus costs and fees.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Plaintiff, entered in accordance with Defendants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer of judgment. The court held that under the plain text of Rule 68, the district court properly entered judgment according to the County’s offer of judgment. The court’s review of the rule showed that it was designed to function in a mechanical manner. The court reasoned that Rule 68 offer, once made, is non-negotiable; it is either accepted, in which case it is automatically entered by the clerk of court or rejected, in which case it stands as the marker by which the Plaintiff’s results are ultimately measured. View "ROBERT KUBIAK V. COUNTY OF RAVALLI" on Justia Law

On June 13, 2014, Beaver County Correctional Facility (“BCCF”) officers responded to reports of a truck running into parked cars. The decedent, Troy Bradshaw, was arrested Bradshaw for driving under the influence and he was transported to Beaver Valley Hospital. A deputy completed the Initial Arrestee Assessment (IAA), which reflected that Bradshaw previously considered suicide; was not thinking about it currently; had a brother who committed or attempted suicide; and was intoxicated. Bradshaw stated that he would kill himself if placed in a cell. After the IAA, the officers placed Bradshaw on suicide watch. Bradshaw beat on the cell door for two to three hours. Officers did not place him in a safety smock or create a suicide watch log, in violation of BCCF’s suicide-prevention policy, but a corporal monitored Bradshaw by sitting in the booking area all night. By June 14, Bradshaw was no longer acting violently, and he was transferred from a suicide-watch cell two to cell three, pertinent here, a cell with bed linens. Just after noon on June 15, Bradshaw was found dead in his cell after he hanged himself with some of the provided bedding. Bradshaw’s mother, plaintiff Kathy George, sued on behalf of her son’s estate, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 that prison defendants violated Bradshaw’s Fourteenth Amendment rights and “Utah Code Article I, Section 7.” The district court granted summary judgment to all prison defendants because the law entitled them to qualified immunity, and no Beaver County policy violated Bradshaw’s constitutional rights. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that although Plaintiff proved that certain officers failed to follow Beaver County’s suicide-prevention policy, “failing to follow prison policy is not a constitutional violation in and of itself.” View "George v. Beaver County, et al." on Justia Law

Lumpkin was convicted of various drug crimes. Wisconsin courts denied his appeal and post-conviction petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the rejection of his federal habeas corpus petition, in which Lumpkin argued ineffective assistance of counsel. The Wisconsin court’s determination that he suffered no prejudice as a result of his trial counsel’s deficient performance in cross-examining a key witness was not an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, Even if Lumpkin’s trial counsel had impeached the witness so thoroughly that she could be deemed completely unreliable and her testimony could be set aside entirely, there existed overwhelming other evidence incriminating Lumpkin. During his arrest, officers uncovered from Lumpkin’s pockets three different types of drugs, separated into nearly thirty individual plastic bags plus more than $1100 in cash, all in small bills. The testimony of another witness and text messages provided overwhelming evidence proving that Lumpkin possessed drugs with an intent to deliver them. View "Lumpkin v. Hermans" on Justia Law