Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Sanders, a severely mentally ill inmate, has been in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction since 2004. For eight years, he was in solitary confinement, where his mental health deteriorated. Sanders has attempted suicide and engaged in self-harm multiple times. He claims that self-mutilation was a pre-condition for solitary confinement inmates to speak with a mental health person. Sanders filed suit and applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which allows indigent prisoners to bring suits without prepaying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has three strikes—actions or appeals dismissed for being “frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim”—can only proceed without prepayment if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Sanders cited the “imminent danger exception.”The district court initially granted his IFP application but later revoked its grant, finding that none of Sanders’s allegations demonstrated that he was in imminent danger. The Seventh Circuit reinstated his IFP status. Sanders adequately alleged his belief that certain practices at the Pontiac Correctional Center would lead him to self-harm. The district court erroneously determined that the allegations were fraudulent and did so without explicitly considering whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate. View "Sanders v. Melvin" on Justia Law

West Virginia State Troopers Elliott and Cornelius received three 911 calls about Crumbley. Two different callers stated that Crumbley was armed and dangerous and keeping his family hostage. Another caller stated Crumbley made threats about shooting the police. The troopers, heading to Crumbley’s property, discussed Crumbley’s rumored drug connections. Crumbley came out of the house screaming and threatened a shootout. He had nothing in his hands but threatened to get a weapon. Crumbley went between the yard where the troopers were and the house, threatening to get a weapon and shoot the troopers. Crumbley pulled down his pants to expose his genitals while spinning in a circle. Crumbley then got a shovel, threatened the troopers with it, then ran, throwing the shovel. Cornelius fell in the snow. When Elliott turned a corner, he saw Crumbley turned away from him. Crumbley then abruptly turned toward Elliott and began to raise his hands, causing Elliot to believe that he might have a gun. Elliott fatally shot him. Crumbley did not have a gun.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Elliott. Crumbley was shot in the back, raising a genuine dispute about Elliot’s version of events. The facts might show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. View "Stanton v. Elliott" on Justia Law

Faver, a practicing Muslim inmate, sued, alleging the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), had denied him the ability to practice tenets of his religion, in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc. He alleged that, because of the VDOC’s single-vendor policy for its commissaries, he was required to purchase “his perfumed oils [for prayer] from Keefe,” which also sells “swine and idols” to other inmates. While he did not allege that the Keefe prayer oil was itself unsuitable, he alleged that “Islam prohibits the acquisition of religious accouterments from a company that sells swine and idols.” VDOC explained that before 2013, under a multiple-vendor policy, VDOC experienced “negative and harmful results” to the security, safety, and efficiency of its facilities.The Fourth Circuit affirmed that VDOC did not violate Faver’s rights under RLUIPA. While Faver had a sincerely-held religious belief and his religious exercise was substantially burdened by the single-vendor policy, the policy furthered the VDOC’s compelling interest of “preventing contraband, which promotes prison safety and security, and reducing the time prison personnel must devote to checking commissary shipments, which controls costs.” The policy was “the least restrictive means to further its compelling interests.” View "Faver v. Clarke" on Justia Law

Schlenker pled guilty to second-degree murder, 18 U.S.C. 1111 and 1153(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, section 924(c)(1)(A). In his plea agreement, he waived his right to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence, except for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After his sentencing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual clause of section 924(c)(3), definition of a “crime of violence,” was unconstitutionally vague. The Ninth Circuit then held that second-degree murder is not a “crime of violence” under the elements clause of section 924(c)(3). Schlenker sought to challenge the validity of his section 924(c) sentence in a habeas proceeding but prosecutors responded that the government would consider the filing of such an action to be a breach of the plea agreement.Schlenker then filed a civil action seeking a declaration that filing a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion would not breach the plea agreement and to clarify the terms of the plea agreement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his suit. The district court lacked jurisdiction because there was no “case or controversy” as required under Article III. Schlenker’s declaratory action and motion to clarify improperly sought to carve out a collateral legal issue—the validity and scope of the collateral attack waiver—from a potential section 2255 motion, and to use the Declaratory Judgment Act as a substitute to challenge his sentence. View "United States v. Schlenker" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Oakland’s Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance, which requires landlords re-taking occupancy of their homes upon the expiration of a lease to pay tenants a relocation payment. Plaintiffs alleged that the relocation fee is an unconstitutional physical taking of their money for a private rather than public purpose, without just compensation. Alternatively, they claimed that the fee constitutes an unconstitutional exaction of their Oakland home and an unconstitutional seizure of their money under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Although in certain circumstances money can be the subject of a physical (per se) taking, the relocation fee required by the Ordinance was a regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship, not an unconstitutional taking of a specific and identifiable property interest. Because there was no taking, the court did not address whether the relocation fee was required for a public purpose or what just compensation would be. The court rejected an assertion that Oakland placed an unconstitutional condition (an exaction), on their preferred use of their Oakland home. The plaintiffs did not establish a cognizable theory of state action; Oakland did not participate in the monetary exchange between plaintiffs and their tenants. View "Ballinger v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

In 1985, Manning was convicted of first-degree murder, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. Manning was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissals of Manning’s first and second habeas petitions. Since then, Manning has filed multiple unsuccessful motions for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive habeas petition.Manning, pro se, again sought an order authorizing a second or successive habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). The Sixth Circuit again rejected his petition. Manning did not make a prima facie showing that his petition relied on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. Manning cited Miller v. Alabama (2012), which held that defendants “under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes” cannot be sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Manning sought to extend Miller’s new rule to persons who (like Manning) were 18 years old at the time of their offense. Miller unambiguously applies to only those who were under 18 at the time of their offense; for purposes of the Eighth Amendment, an individual’s eighteenth birthday marks a bright line. View "In re: Manning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the trial court's judgments following Defendant's conditional pleas of nolo contendere to charges of sale of a controlled substance and violation of probation, holding that Defendant could not meet the requirements to establish classical aggrievement.On appeal, Defendant, who was Caucasian, argued that his conviction violated his right to due process because the statute under which he was convicted violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution because it was enacted to discriminate against African Americans and Mexican Americans. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Defendant could not bring his constitutional challenge in his individual capacity based on the alleged violation of others' equal protection rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to meet the requirements to establish classical aggrievement. View "State v. Bradley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the the trial court convicting defendants Karl Holmes, Herbert McClain, and Lorenzo Newborn of three counts of murder, five counts of attempted murder, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder and sentencing each defendant to death, holding that no prejudicial error occurred at either stage of the proceedings.After the jury failed to reach a penalty verdict, a new penalty phase was held, and death verdicts were returned against all defendants. On appeal, Defendants asserted several allegations of error argued that the cumulative prejudicial errors in both the guilt and penalty phases of the trials required the reversal of their convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the few instances in which this Court found or assumed error, no prejudice resulted; and (2) whether the claims are considered separately or cumulatively, no prejudicial error occurred. View "People v. Holmes" on Justia Law

June’s son, Brenden, suffers from severe bipolar disorder and is prone to violent outbursts. He has repeatedly been jailed and institutionalized. In 2017, he was involuntarily admitted to Greystone, a New Jersey state-run psychiatric hospital, where Brenden’s condition worsened. He stalked the halls, made an aggressive sexual comment to a staffer, and attacked other patients, sending one to the intensive care unit. Greystone staff encouraged June’s visits as part of Brenden’s treatment. Before one visit, June asked if it was safe to visit Brenden. Though Brenden had severely beaten another patient days earlier, his psychiatrist, Dr. Young, assured her that it was safe. Greystone employees were supposed to supervise all patient meetings but no one was assigned to monitor June’s visit. Initially, Brenden’s head nurse, Oglesby accompanied June, During June’s visit, Oglesby left the room. Brenden then attacked June, who suffered brain trauma, broken ribs, and PTSD.The district court dismissed June’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Sovereign immunity barred the claims against Greystone and state officials in their official capacity. The Third Circuit reversed as to Oglesby, who abandoned June mid-visit. June’s injury was fairly direct as well as foreseeable. Oglesby’s affirmative act endangered June; her departure deprived June of the freedom to avoid an unsupervised visit or to take other precautions. Dr. Young took no affirmative acts. View "Mears v. Connolly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court that re-sentenced Defendant, for purposes of appeal, to an indeterminate term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years in connection for his conviction of one count of sexual abuse by a parent or person in a position of trust to a child, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his recorded confession and allowing Defendant's interview at the police department to be played for the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err by failing to give two jury instructions proffered by Defendant; and (3) Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly before this Court on direct appeal. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law