Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In Georgia, in-person voters can vote on election day or during advance voting. Absentee voters, after applying for and receiving an absentee ballot, are responsible for returning their ballots directly to the county election office, depositing them into a ballot drop box, or mailing them to that office. The statute requires neither the state of Georgia nor county governments to cover the cost of postage for mailing ballots. Plaintiffs alleged that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause required Georgia to pay for postage for voters who choose to return their absentee ballots by mail; by not covering the cost of postage, Georgia is imposing an unconstitutional “poll tax” or fee on some absentee voters.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit. Requiring the payment of postage is not a “tax” or unconstitutional fee on voting. Georgia voters, without paying any money, have several options; even those voters who choose to mail in their absentee ballots buy postage from the U.S. Postal Service and the proceeds from postage sales are paid to USPS—not the state of Georgia— to account for the costs associated with delivering the mail. These voters are buying services from USPS. Georgia does not receive any money from those sales. View "Black Voters Matter Fund v. Secretary of State for the State of Georgia" on Justia Law

In 2017, Pollard was indicted for possessing a gun as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Over the previous 20 years, he had been convicted of several felonies and served over five years in prison, including for a 2004 violation of California’s felon-in-possession statute. Pollard pled guilty. He was sentenced to 57 months and did not appeal.A year later, the Supreme Court decided “Rehaif,” holding that section 922(g)(1) requires the government to prove that the defendant knew he was a felon at the time of possession. Pollard moved to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(a), contending that his guilty plea was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary without having been informed of section 922(g)(1)’s knowledge-of-status element. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Pollard’s motion because he had not shown actual prejudice and failed to overcome the procedurally defaulted nature of his claim. View "United States v. Pollard" on Justia Law

A store employee overheard his coworker talking with Matthews about a pipe bomb that they had detonated the previous day; they discussed where to place another bomb that Matthews apparently had with him. Long called the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office and told Sergeant Becherer that Matthews was a frequent customer and that he knew Matthews owned a “highly modified” AR-15 with a silencer, lived in a trailer behind “the old Fin & Feather Restaurant,” worked on cars in the shed, and had “free reign of the property.” Someone living near the restaurant had called the Sheriff's Office about an explosion. Matthews’s social media posts showed that he possessed explosives. Nothing in the warrant complaint or affidavit explained why Becherer or the State’s Attorney believed Matthews had access to all structures and buildings. The judge heard their testimony and signed the warrant covering all buildings and structures on the former restaurant property. An hour later, a team searched the property and found multiple firearms, silencers, a pipe bomb, and more explosive materials.Matthews, present during the search, was charged with possessing a machine gun, 18 U.S.C. 922(o), an unregistered silencer, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d), and an unregistered short-barreled rifle. The Seventh Circuit upheld the denial of a motion to suppress. An objectively reasonable officer, having consulted with the State’s Attorney in preparing the complaint and affidavit, could have relied in good faith on the search warrant, which, although incomplete, was not utterly lacking in indicia of probable cause. View "United States v. Matthews" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of this suit challenging Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker's COVID-19 Order No. 43 as unconstitutional, holding that the case was moot.Bit Bar, which owned and ran a restaurant/arcade in the city of Salem, Massachusetts, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, attacking Governor Baker's order, which temporarily closed the trade part of Bit Bar's business, as unconstitutional. The complaint alleged that the Governor's restriction violated Bit Bar's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Just days after Bit Bar filed suit, Governor Baker entered an order allowing arcades to reopen. The Governor then moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the case was moot. View "Boston Bit Labs, Inc. v. Baker" on Justia Law

FKFJ was established to operate Saraya Restaurant & Banquet and Zaman Café in Worth, Illinois. Werner, the Village President at the time, decided to run for reelection the year Saraya opened. FKFJ supported Werner’s political opponent in the election. Around the same time, FKFJ had various disputes with the Village of Worth.FKFJ filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First Amendment, equal protection, and due process violations. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the “tapestry of colorful factual threads.” Whatever occurred between FKFJ and the Village, FKFJ has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could find the disputes are of constitutional import. FKFJ has not presented sufficient argument about any similarly situated entities and cannot satisfy the rational basis prong of a class-of-one equal protection claim. FKFJ had a mere unilateral expectation its license would be renewed. FkFJ failed to establish causation between the protected activity and adverse action for its First Amendment claim. View "FKFJ, Inc. v. Village of Worth" on Justia Law

Twyford was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death in 1993. Twyford filed a federal habeas petition and sought transport for neurological imaging. Twyford noted that he may have neurological problems due to childhood physical abuse, alcohol and drug use, and a gunshot wound to his head from a suicide attempt at age 13, which cost him an eye and left shrapnel in his head. Dr. Scharre, a neurologist and the director of the Cognitive Neurology Division at The Ohio State University, had evaluated Twyford, reviewed his medical records, and concluded that a CT scan and an FDG-PET scan were necessary for him to evaluate Twyford fully. The Chillicothe Correctional Institution, where Twyford is incarcerated, does not have the equipment to perform this imaging. Twyford alleged that the results could be relevant to his claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, coerced statements, competency, and mitigation evidence. The warden contended that the district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to bring a prisoner to the court in a 2254 action, but not to require that the state transport a prisoner to an outside medical facility and that Twyford was seeking new information that he did not present to the state courts.The Sixth Circuit affirmed an order granting Twyford’s motion. The court had jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to order the warden to transport Twyford for neurological imaging because the results “may aide this Court in the exercise of its congressionally mandated habeas review.” View "Twyford v. Shoop" on Justia Law

Troy Robinson's family filed suit under federal and state law after a traffic stop that resulted in Robinson's death. Robinson, a passenger in the stopped vehicle, fled the scene on foot, ran across a busy road and through a parking lot before attempting to scale an eight-foot wall. The pursuing officer fired his taser at Robinson while he was on top of the wall and the shock from the taser incapacitated Robinson, causing him to fall, break his neck, and die.The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the officer cannot be held liable for conducting the initial traffic stop or pursuing Robinson when he fled on foot. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to these two issues. However, the court held that the officer's decision to tase Robinson at an elevated height violated Robinson's clearly established right to be free from excessive force. The court explained that the officer used deadly force to stop an unarmed man who was not suspected of committing a violent crime from fleeing on foot, and that Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), establishes that this level of force is excessive in that circumstance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to the officer and remanded so that plaintiffs' claims against the officer relating to the tasing may proceed to trial. View "Bradley v. Benton" on Justia Law

Mitchell was a Duval County Jail pretrial detainee. Detective Simpson told a jail official to “obtain,” “seize,” and “confiscate and review” all of Mitchell’s incoming and outgoing mail. A mail clerk, Perkins, delivered a letter from Mitchell’s attorney marked “Legal Mail” that had already been opened. When Perkins later asked Mitchell specific questions about his case, Mitchell concluded that she had read at least part of the letter. During the next year, Mitchell continued to experience issues with his mail. Perkins switched an outgoing letter to Mitchell’s family with another inmate’s letter. Sergeant Clark, the mailroom supervisor, tried to “intimidate” Mitchell, intercepting his grievances and warning him to stop filing complaints.Mitchell filed a pro se complaint alleging that Simpson, Perkins, and Clark, violated his constitutional rights. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, noting that: A simple rule has governed prison mail procedures in our Circuit for nearly 50 years: a prison official may not open an inmate’s properly marked legal mail outside of his presence. The defendants’ conduct violated Mitchell’s First Amendment right to free speech; it was clearly established that the officials’ conduct was unlawful. View "Mitchell v. Smith" on Justia Law

Ward pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. In February 2018, the district court sentenced Ward to 200 months of imprisonment. Ward unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief. In March 2020, through counsel, Ward sent a request for compassionate release to the warden, claiming that her kidney failure, other medical problems, and vulnerability to COVID-19 constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. In May 2020, the Bureau of Prisons denied her request because Ward’s “medical condition has not been determined to be terminal within eighteen months nor end of life trajectory.”In July 2020, after exhausting her administrative remedies, Ward sought relief under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that compassionate release would be consistent with Sentencing Guideline 1B1.13 and that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors favor a reduction. Ward filed her medical records, and an expert’s report that her kidney disease put her “at higher risk for developing severe illness, kidney failure, or death if she becomes infected with the coronavirus.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Ward’s motion. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ward’s motion based on arguments not advanced by the government. Motions for compassionate release are inherently discretionary. The district court had the authority to consider Section 3553(a)'s sentencing factors. View "Ward v. United States" on Justia Law

San Francisco pretrial detainees filed a putative class action challenging conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the denial of access to outdoor recreation and direct sunlight. The court enjoined some of the jail’s practices, finding the evidence inconclusive as to whether the lack of direct sunlight created a medical risk and that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in seeking exercise time outdoors. The policy of permitting general population inmates to receive 4.5-8 hours of day room time and 30 minutes of gym time daily was constitutionally sufficient but forcing pretrial detainees to live without direct sunlight for years was simply punishment. The court ordered the jail to provide one hour per week of direct sunlight to inmates who had been incarcerated for more than four years. The court dismissed the Sheriff’s Department as a superfluous defendant and dismissed individual defendants based on qualified immunity.The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part. The government’s appeal was moot because the preliminary injunction order expired after 90 days, The district court did not err in denying greater preliminary injunctive relief; there is no bright-line test to determine if and when inmates are entitled to outdoor exercise. Plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on their “direct sunlight” claim given the district court’s extensive factual findings. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ cross-appeal of the dismissal of the Sheriff’s Department and the individual defendants. View "Norbert v. City and County of San Francisco" on Justia Law