Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging claims of wrongful arrest and wrongful detention. After responding to a 911 call reporting an assault and robbery, officers arrived at an apartment complex and conducted a brief investigation, arresting plaintiff and two others for second degree robbery. During the continuing investigation after plaintiff's arrest, the police department obtained surveillance video that demonstrated that plaintiff was not in the victim's apartment at the time of the assault and robbery. Prosecutors later dropped the charges against plaintiff. The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.The Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that the record supports the conclusion that the officers had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for the assault based on the victim's identification of plaintiff as one of his attackers. In this case, the record evidence does not create a factual dispute, and thus the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest claim. In regard to plaintiff's claim that defendants wrongful detained him, the court noted that this decision was not made by the named defendants but, rather, by the city prosecuting attorney. Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claim against the named defendants. View "Ngong Garang v. City of Ames" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit joined the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits in holding that under the expanded definition of "disability" under the ADA Amendments Act, which now covers impairments "lasting or expected to last less than six months," 28 C.F.R. 35.108(d)(ix), a short-term injury can qualify as an actionable disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.After plaintiff sustained injuries as an inmate at the Westchester County Jail by stepping on crumbled concrete in the recreational yard, he filed suit pro se against the County defendants and the medical defendants, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).The court concluded that the district court erred in categorically excluding short-term injuries from qualifying as a "disability" under the ADA. The court explained that plaintiff's claim could not be dismissed as a matter of law simply because the injury causing these limitations was temporary. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's dismissal to the extent it dismissed plaintiff's ADA claim against the County, remanded for further proceedings as to that claim, and affirmed the dismissal of the remaining claims. View "Hamilton v. Westchester County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, her former Sociology teacher at a public high school in Texas, alleging that he violated her First Amendment rights by attempting to compel her to transcribe the United States Pledge of Allegiance and by retaliating against her after she refused. After the district court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, he filed an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The Fifth Circuit granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss, concluding that defendant seeks to have the court resolve the very factual disputes that the district court found to be genuine and properly submitted for trial on the merits, which the court did not have jurisdiction to do. In this case, defendant's legal arguments are inextricably intertwined with his challenges to the facts that the district court found to be disputed. View "Oliver v. Arnold" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's jury conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, holding that Defendant was denied his confrontation rights.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence stemming from the stop of the vehicle and argued that the justice court improperly allowed a State witness to appear by two-way video at trial. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the trooper lawfully stopped and detained Defendant; and (2) reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the justice court violated Defendant's right to confrontation when it allowed Defendant to testify via two-way video. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed this appeal arising in connection with a lawsuit alleging that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is now part of the United States Constitution, holding that none of the plaintiffs met their burden at the pleading stage with respect to federal constitutional requirements.Plaintiffs were Equal Means Equal, a national nonprofit organization, The Yellow Roses, a student organization based in Massachusetts, and Katherine Weitbrecht, a resident of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs brought this action against David Ferriero, in his official capacity as Archivist of the United States, alleging that, after Virginia ratified the ERA in 2020, the Archivist violated 1 U.S.C. 106b when he refused to publish it and certify its adoption. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to bring this action in federal court. View "Equal Means Equal v. Ferriero" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamines, holding that Defendant's challenges on appeal were unavailing.During a probation compliance check in Defendant's apartment state probation officers discovered a black case containing illegal narcotics. The police then obtained and executed a warrant to search Defendant's apartment and his two cellphones for evidence of drug dealing. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that there was no probable cause to search his cellphones and that the warrant did not adequately specify which files on the phones would be searched. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered from the cellphones; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "United States v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a reality show's production and media companies for various causes of action after discovering she was filmed while changing clothes in a dressing area designated for models, and that her "nearly fully nude body had been exposed on national television" during the airing of the show. Defendant production and media companies filed a special motion to strike the model's complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation under the anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.The Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiff's claims arise from the production and broadcast of an episode of "Shahs of Sunset," which is protected activity. In this case, the court agreed with defendants' assertion that the footage at issue is relevant to the storyline of the episode and that the experience of being a model is an issue of public interest. However, the court concluded that plaintiff has shown a probability of success on her causes of action for invasion of privacy; tortious misappropriation of name or likeness; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and negligence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's order denying defendants' special motion to strike the complaint, as modified: the separate cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is stricken from the complaint, as it is part and parcel of the negligence cause of action. View "Belen v. Ryan Seacrest Productions, LLC" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in an action brought by plaintiffs, on behalf of their son, Tanner, who was arrested when he was 15 years old on charges that were later dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Iowa state law stemming from the officers' arrest of Tanner after he was accused of sexual assault. The court concluded that the officers had probable cause to arrest Tanner and were therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim. The court explained that, when the officers arrested Tanner, they had probable cause to believe that he had committed the crime of third-degree sexual abuse under Iowa law.The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims, concluding that nothing in the officers' statements or actions indicates that they acted recklessly as they investigated the allegations against Tanner. Finally, because the officers had probable cause for the arrest, the court concluded that plaintiffs' state law claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution fail and defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the claims. View "Walz v. Randall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree intentional homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims that the trial court erred in denying two pre-trial evidentiary orders.At issue was the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress the admission of incriminating cell phone data and the circuit court's discretionary decision to admit evidence from a Fitbit device allegedly worn by the victim's boyfriend at the time of the homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if some constitutional defect attended either the initial download of the cell phone data or subsequent accessing of the cell phone data, there was no law enforcement misconduct that would warrant exclusion of that data; and (2) the circuit court permissibly exercised its discretion in admitting the Fitbit evidence where no expert was required and the State sufficiently authenticated the records from Fitbit. View "State v. Burch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, and attempted armed robbery, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress Defendant's text messages was not ineffective assistance of counsel because probable cause was established; (2) counsel was not ineffective for failing to exclude cell site location information; (3) Defendant was not was prejudiced by defense counsel's failure to object to in-court and out-of-court identifications made by an eyewitness; and (4) there was no other basis to set aside or reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree or to order a new trial under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Louis" on Justia Law