Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A prison inmate with a documented history of mobility impairments and medical accommodations, including the use of a wheelchair and a transportation code requiring wheelchair-accessible vehicles, was scheduled for transfer between two facilities. On the day of the transport, he arrived in his wheelchair but was not provided with an accessible van. Instead, prison officials attempted to move him onto a standard bus. The inmate protested, stating he could not board without proper accommodations, but officials treated his protest as a refusal. After a crisis negotiator was called and negotiations failed, prison staff physically moved him onto the bus, allegedly causing him injury.A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding the officials’ awareness of the inmate’s needs, the transportation code in effect, the extent of force used, and the resulting injuries. The magistrate recommended denying summary judgment and qualified immunity for most defendants. However, the district court rejected these recommendations, granted summary judgment for the State of Washington and the individual prison officials, and found that qualified immunity shielded the officials, reasoning that the mistaken transportation code did not amount to deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because material factual disputes remained regarding whether officials had notice of the inmate’s need for accommodation and the extent of their investigation into those needs. The Ninth Circuit also found that these disputes precluded summary judgment on Eighth Amendment claims alleging deliberate indifference and excessive force, and that qualified immunity was improperly granted at this stage. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "WELDEYOHANNES V. STATE OF WASHINGTON" on Justia Law

A computer science teaching professor at a public university included a statement in his course syllabus that parodied the university’s recommended indigenous land acknowledgment. This statement, which challenged the university’s view regarding the ownership of campus land, drew complaints from students and staff, particularly those involved in diversity and indigenous advocacy. The professor refused to remove the statement when asked, prompting university administrators to replace his syllabus, publicly condemn his remarks, and encourage official complaints from students. The university then initiated a lengthy disciplinary investigation, withheld a merit pay increase during this period, issued a reprimand, and warned of potential future discipline if the professor continued similar conduct. The university’s actions were based on the disruption and distress reported by students and concerns about creating an unwelcome environment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that the professor’s speech was protected and addressed a matter of public concern. However, applying the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, it granted summary judgment to the university, finding that the institution’s interest in preventing disruption and maintaining an inclusive learning environment outweighed the professor’s First Amendment rights. The district court also dismissed the professor’s facial challenges to the university’s nondiscrimination policy, interpreting it narrowly to apply only to conduct resembling unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the university and directed that summary judgment be entered for the professor on his First Amendment retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims. The appellate court held that the professor’s syllabus statement was protected academic speech on a matter of public concern, and that student or community offense or discomfort could not justify university retaliation or discipline under the First Amendment. The panel also ruled that the district court improperly construed the university’s nondiscrimination policy and remanded for further proceedings on the policy’s facial constitutionality. View "REGES V. CAUCE" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2020, three veterans residing at the Soldiers’ Home in Chelsea, Massachusetts, died after contracting COVID-19. The personal representatives of the veterans’ estates filed suit against several Massachusetts state officials responsible for the facility, alleging violations of the veterans’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint asserted that the officials failed to protect residents from COVID-19 by not implementing adequate safety protocols and maintaining inhumane living conditions, including lack of sanitation, improper restraint of residents, and exposure to illegal drugs.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reviewed the complaint after the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation and that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. It held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged individual involvement by any defendant in the purported misconduct regarding COVID-19, and failed to provide details showing how the named veterans were specifically harmed by the living conditions. The court also found no clearly established legal authority placing the officials on notice that their conduct would violate the veterans’ rights, thus concluding qualified immunity applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The First Circuit held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the defendants directly caused the harm suffered by the veterans, nor did it sufficiently invoke exceptions to that requirement. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a violation of clearly established law and thus, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "Terenzio v. Urena" on Justia Law

Luther Poynter was incarcerated at the Barren County Detention Center in Kentucky for contempt of court related to unpaid child support. After a brief period in COVID-19 observation, he was moved to a general-population cell with two other detainees, Scotty Wix and Timothy Guess. Both Wix and Guess had extensive histories of violent behavior and multiple documented assaults against other detainees while in the facility. Shortly after Poynter entered the cell, Guess and Wix attacked him without apparent provocation, causing a traumatic brain injury and lasting physical impairment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky reviewed the case after Poynter, through his guardian, sued the jailer and Barren County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the county, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a constitutional violation or municipal liability, and held that Poynter had not shown he was placed at a substantial risk of harm or that reasonable steps were not taken to abate that risk.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Poynter had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Barren County had a custom of failing to properly classify detainees with violent histories, recklessly disregarded a known risk, and that this failure caused Poynter’s injuries. The Sixth Circuit clarified that municipal liability can attach even without identifying a specific individual as the violator, so long as the unconstitutional harm resulted from a municipal policy or custom. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Poynter v. Bennett" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are mental health counselors who provide “talk therapy” services, including counseling to minors, guided by their Catholic faith. Their services consist exclusively of spoken words, and they do not use physical or aversive techniques. Some of their clients, including minors with parental consent, seek counseling to address issues related to gender identity or sexual orientation, such as wanting to align their gender identity with their biological sex or to reduce same-sex attraction in accordance with their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs assert an ethical and religious duty to help clients pursue such goals if requested.In 2023, Michigan enacted laws forbidding licensed therapists from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors, defined as efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, but specifically permitting counseling that assists with gender transition. The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of these laws, arguing that the prohibition restricts their speech based on its content and viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the counseling in question was conduct, not speech, for constitutional purposes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing and disagreed with the district court’s characterization of the therapy as conduct rather than speech. The court held that the Michigan law is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The court determined that the State did not demonstrate a sufficient justification for the restriction, and that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for prompt entry of an injunction preventing enforcement of the law during the case. View "Catholic Charities of Jackson v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

In this case, an individual attended the 2022 Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky, with a group to engage in expressive activities such as preaching, distributing literature, and displaying signs near the event. The area surrounding Churchill Downs was subject to a special event permit issued by the city government, which allowed Churchill Downs to restrict access to certain public streets and sidewalks to ticket holders and credentialed individuals. The plaintiff and his group entered a fenced-off, restricted area beyond posted “No Trespassing” signs, despite lacking event tickets or credentials. After repeated warnings from private security and law enforcement, the plaintiff was arrested by a Kentucky State Police trooper for criminal trespass.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his free speech, free exercise, and due process rights, as well as a Monell municipal liability claim against the city government and claims against the arresting officer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. It found the free speech restriction content-neutral and justified under intermediate scrutiny, concluded the free exercise claim was not properly developed, determined the permitting scheme was not unconstitutionally vague, dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and granted qualified immunity to the arresting officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the restricted area was a limited public forum and the ticketing and access restrictions were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination, held that ample alternative channels for communication existed, and determined that the plaintiff failed to preserve his free exercise claim and did not establish a due process violation. The Monell claim failed for lack of a constitutional violation, and qualified immunity was properly granted to the officer. View "Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't" on Justia Law

The plaintiff claimed that Michigan had taken custody of between $200 and $600 in unclaimed property belonging to her. She alleged that, under Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, the state would return her property if she requested it but would not pay her any interest earned while the property was in the state’s custody, unless the property was originally interest bearing. Without first submitting a claim to reclaim her property, she brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials responsible for Michigan’s unclaimed property program, arguing that the state’s failure to pay interest amounted to an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and a putative class.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed her case, concluding that she lacked Article III standing because Michigan law did not grant her a property right to interest earned on her unclaimed property. The district court reasoned that, without such a property right, she could not demonstrate an injury from the state’s retention of interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff had standing, as her complaint alleged a concrete financial injury: the state’s withholding of interest that she claimed was rightfully hers. The court held that the district court improperly conflated the merits of whether she was entitled to interest with the standing inquiry. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the record was insufficient to resolve the merits of the takings claim at this stage. View "Hendershot v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Police investigating a fatal drive-by shooting in Philadelphia identified several suspects, including T.C., and obtained an arrest warrant for him. Detectives used multiple databases, including CLEAR and police records, to determine T.C.’s last known address, which pointed to 4838 Stenton Avenue. Believing T.C. resided there, detectives and a SWAT team executed the warrant early one morning. Instead of finding T.C., officers encountered Richard Miller and Tonya Crawley, who had lived at the residence for two years and were not connected to T.C. The officers detained Miller and Crawley briefly and then left after learning T.C. was not present. T.C. was later located and cleared of wrongdoing.Miller and Crawley sued the involved officers and the City of Philadelphia in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers lacked probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the City failed to train or supervise its officers. The District Court dismissed the municipal-liability claim for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the officers on the unlawful-entry claim, holding that they had probable cause to enter the residence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed both the dismissal and summary judgment de novo. The court held that, although the District Court incorrectly invoked the good-faith exception, the error was harmless because the officers had probable cause to believe T.C. lived at the address and would likely be home at the early hour. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish municipal liability, as there was no pattern of similar constitutional violations or plausible basis for single-incident liability. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decisions. View "Miller v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Joseph Hehrer was detained in the Clinton County Jail in Michigan following charges related to operating a vehicle under the influence and a probation violation. While in custody, Hehrer began to exhibit symptoms of illness, including vomiting and abdominal pain. Over four days, jail medical staff evaluated him multiple times but failed to diagnose his underlying diabetes. Despite continued deterioration, corrections officers deferred to the medical professionals’ judgment and followed their instructions. Hehrer’s condition worsened until he was transported to a hospital, where he died from diabetic ketoacidosis.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the estate’s claims, which included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county and its officers for deliberate indifference to medical needs, as well as a Monell claim for failure to train. The estate also brought state-law claims against the contracted medical provider and its staff. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the county and its officials on the federal claims, finding no deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and advised declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The district court adopted these recommendations and entered final judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the corrections officers acted reasonably by deferring to medical staff and did not act with deliberate indifference under the applicable Fourteenth Amendment standard. The court further held that the estate failed to show a pattern or obvious need for additional training to support Monell liability. Finally, the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. View "Hehrer v. County of Clinton" on Justia Law

After Mikel Neil fled from a traffic stop initiated by two St. Louis County police officers, a high-speed chase ensued, reaching speeds over ninety miles per hour through a residential area. During the pursuit, one of the officers used a PIT maneuver, causing Neil’s vehicle to crash into a tree, resulting in his death. The officers left the scene without administering aid or calling for assistance and later falsely reported the crash as a single-car incident. Neil’s mother, Clara Cheeks, brought a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers had used excessive force.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed Cheeks’s excessive force claim, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint did not sufficiently allege a constitutional violation. Over a year after the dismissal, and after the deadline for amending pleadings had passed, Cheeks sought leave to amend her complaint to revive the excessive force claim. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the proposed amendments would be futile. Cheeks then appealed the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend, after voluntarily dismissing her remaining claim for failure to provide medical aid.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. The Eighth Circuit held that, under the circumstances described in the complaint, the use of a PIT maneuver during a dangerous high-speed chase did not constitute excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, following precedents such as Scott v. Harris. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, because the proposed amendments would not cure the deficiencies in the excessive force claim. The court’s disposition was to affirm the dismissal and denial of leave to amend. View "Cheeks v. Belmar" on Justia Law