Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a bag of narcotics seized from his vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the law enforcement officers conducting a search for weapons on his person and in the areas of his vehicle under his immediate control did not possess the required reasonable suspension to initiate a warrantless search. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the law enforcement officer who conducted the traffic stop presented articulable facts at the suppression hearing giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's request to suppress the controlled substances that were discovered as a result of the search of the areas of Defendant's vehicle which were under his immediate control. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state negligence law against prison officials, medical staff, and a medical services company for withholding plaintiff's prescription orthotic shoes.The court concluded that, although the district court erred by relying on Arkansas law to exclude parts of plaintiff's substituted expert's testimony because the matter should have been weighed under Daubert and relevant federal law, the error was harmless. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in excluding the nurse's testimony as a substituted expert when her opinions went beyond the scope of the earlier expert report and deposition. The court further concluded that the district court did not err in granting the warden's motion for summary judgment as there was no evidence that the warden recognized the risk of having plaintiff wear standard issue prison shoes or knew that requiring a doctor's authorization for special shoes would put plaintiff's health at risk. Furthermore, there was no error in granting summary judgment for the medical defendants where their actions either did not rise to the level of criminal negligence or were not so inappropriate that a jury would find intentional maltreatment or a refusal to provide essential care. View "Shipp v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of two counts of rape, two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and one count of aggravated intimidation of a victim, holding that the district court did not err when it permitted the father of the victim (Father) to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.Father had previously been convicted of sexual abuse of the victim. During trial, the district court allowed Father to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and excused him from the trial. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court erred when it permitted Father to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege and that the error was not harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not err in excluding Father's testimony as evidence. View "State v. Contreras" on Justia Law

Coats, then a convicted felon, was arrested after making several (recorded) controlled drug sales to a confidential informant (CI). Coats was housed at the Wilkinson County jail, where the CI was also in custody. Coats gained access to the CI and punched him. That incident resulted in additional state charges for battery and influencing a witness, to which he pleaded guilty.Coats then pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced Coats to serve 235 months' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which applies when a defendant who is convicted under section 922(g) has three prior convictions for a “serious drug offense” or a “violent felony.” Coats had a 2003 Georgia burglary conviction, which the court determined was a violent felony under ACCA. The court denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction to his sentencing range, citing his obstructive conduct preceding his guilty plea.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Any Rehaif error was nonprejudicial; Coats was not informed of section922(g)’s essential "knowledge" requirement, but he made no attempt to show that he would not have pled guilty but for that error. Of the 12 criminal convictions identified in his PSR, at least four were for felonies. Coats did not dispute the PSR’s description of his criminal history. The burglary conviction qualifies as an ACCA violent felony and the district court did not clearly err in refusing to award an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. View "United States v. Coats" on Justia Law

In 1995, Jones was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend’s mother. After the California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence and denied his state habeas petition, Jones filed a federal habeas petition, raising multiple challenges to both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial. The district court granted relief on Jones’s claim that the state trial court violated his right to present a complete defense; Jones should have been permitted to testify during the guilt phase about events from his childhood and his mental health history, and the trial court erred by conditioning such testimony on the presentation of a psychiatric expert who would explain the testimony’s relevance to Jones’s mental state during the murder.The Ninth Circuit reversed. The condition the trial court imposed on Jones’s testimony was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate to the valid purposes served by its ruling. The court remanded for the district court to consider Jones’s remaining claims. View "Jones v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners and operators of greyhound-racing businesses, filed suit against the Florida Attorney General, seeking a declaration that a newly enacted state law prohibiting gambling on greyhound racing is unlawful and an injunction to prevent her from enforcing it. The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice based on lack of standing.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that plaintiff's alleged injuries are not traceable to any conduct of the Attorney General—either in enforcing or threatening to enforce the law or otherwise—and that plaintiffs' injuries would not be redressable by relief from this court. Therefore, plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring their claims against the Florida Attorney General. View "Support Working Animals, Inc. v. Governor of Florida" on Justia Law

Jim Bakker and Morningside filed suit against several out-of-state defendants in Missouri federal court, alleging that defendants, while acting in their official capacities, violated their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In February 2020, as the Covid-19 pandemic was beginning in the United States, Jim Bakker and Morningside began advertising a product called Silver Solution on the Jim Bakker Show. Bakker and Morningside claimed that Silver Solution "has been proven by the government that it has the ability to kill every pathogen it has ever been tested on;" that it "has been tested on other strains of the coronavirus and has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours;" and that it is "patented, it works, we have tested it, it works on just about everything." Bakker and Morningside allege that defendants' investigations into Silver Solution violate their constitutional rights and that the state statutes defendants have acted under are unconstitutional.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Assuming defendants fell under Missouri's long-arm statute, the court concluded that asserting personal jurisdiction in this case violates due process where the only contact with Missouri were letters and emails directed at Morningside Church and Bakker, rather than the forum state. Therefore, after considering the five factor test for assessing the sufficiency of a defendant's contacts, the court concluded that Bakker and Morningside have not demonstrated that defendants' conduct connects them to the forum in a meaningful way. View "Morningside Church, Inc. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of distributing or arranging to distribute a controlled substance, holding that Defendant's trial counsel was not constitutionally deficient in not requesting a jury instruction pursuant to State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986), about the potential unreliability of eyewitness identification.During trial, Defendant's counsel presented a theory of mistaken identification in his opening and closing arguments and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses about weaknesses in their testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued that his trial counsel's failure to request a Long instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Long does not apply to "real-time identifications," such as the identification in this case. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' holding that Long did not apply but nevertheless affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred when it ruled that Long applies only to "memory-based" identifications; and (2) a reasonable, competent lawyer could have chosen not to request a Long instruction in this case. View "State v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former inmate, filed suit against his nurses and his physician under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that, at that juncture, they were not entitled to qualified immunity.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that plaintiff has introduced evidence showing that officials knowingly furnished treatment unresponsive to his need. In this case, they ignored his inability to walk and refused to treat his lost mobility, permitting the inference that they intentionally treated him incorrectly. The court saw no meaningful distinction between an official's decision to offer plainly unresponsive treatment to a prisoner and his decision to refuse to treat him, ignore his complaints, or intentionally treat him incorrectly. Therefore, at minimum, the court concluded that plaintiff introduced evidence that officials engaged in similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for his serious medical need. Furthermore, this rises to the level of deliberate indifference. The court also concluded that defendants had fair warning that their delay in treating plaintiff's fractured hip beyond the most cursory care violated his Eighth Amendment rights. View "Spikes v. McVea" on Justia Law

On various dates between March and July 2020, the Governor and Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania entered orders to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs, Pennsylvania citizens, elected officials, and businesses, challenged three pairs of directives: stay-at-home orders, business closure orders, and orders setting congregation limits in secular settings. The district court concluded that the orders violated the U.S. Constitution. While the appeal was pending, circumstances changed: more than 60% of Pennsylvanians have received a COVID vaccine. An amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution and a concurrent resolution of the Commonwealth’s General Assembly now restricts the Governor’s authority to enter the same orders. In addition, the challenged orders have expired by their own terms. The Third Circuit vacated the judgment and dismissed an appeal as moot. No exception to the mootness doctrine applies View "County of Butler v. Governor of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law