Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment for Defendants, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, alleged she was sexually and psychologically abused by Defendant, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer. Four years after the abuse ended, Doe initiated this action against Rodriguez and various government defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Doe’s claims were untimely. Doe asked the district court to equitably toll the applicable statutes of limitations. The court granted summary judgment to Defendants.   The Second Circuit vacated and remanded. The court explained that in this case, the district court denied equitable tolling as a matter of law, purporting to draw every inference in favor of Doe. The court vacated its judgment because the record allows for a finding that Doe faced extraordinary circumstances and acted with reasonable diligence. On remand, the district court should act in a fact-finding capacity and determine whether Doe has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances and reasonable diligence. The court explained that if the court determines that she has established these prerequisites for equitable tolling, then it should engage in the discretionary determination of whether to grant her request for equitable tolling. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

The district court preliminarily enjoined Kentucky’s ban on sex-transition care for minors. The court later stayed its injunction in light of a recent Sixth Circuit decision in which the court balanced the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest and held that those factors favored allowing Tennessee to enforce its law. Kentucky bans the same conduct as in that case; the plaintiffs bring the same Equal Protection and Due Process claims that the Sixth Circuit held were unlikely to succeed. The Sixth Circuit declined to lift the stay. As a sovereign state, Kentucky has an interest in creating and enforcing its own laws. The people of Kentucky enacted the ban through their legislature. View "Doe v. Thornbury" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Florida prisoner, says that he deserves a religious exemption from a Florida Department of Corrections rule that beards can only be a half-inch long. The district court agreed with him, and the Secretary of the Department does not push back on that substantive ruling. Instead, the Secretary argues that the decision was procedurally improper because an inmate must file a “Petition to Initiate Rulemaking” to satisfy the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s pre-suit exhaustion requirements. Plaintiff responds that the Secretary did not preserve the issue. 
 The Eleventh Circuit rejected both parties’ arguments and affirmed the district court. The court explained that though it was an open question when the parties argued this case, the Supreme Court has since unanimously clarified that a “purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment” is reviewable on appeal even if the losing party failed to renew its arguments at or after trial.   Further, when a state sets up a grievance procedure for its prisoners, as Florida has done, a prisoner must file a grievance and exhaust the remedies available under that procedure before he can initiate a lawsuit. But a prisoner need not do anything else. Florida’s three-step grievance procedure for settling prisoner complaints does not include filing a rulemaking petition, so a Florida prisoner need not seek rulemaking before he can sue. View "Durell Sims v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

In this murder case, the Supreme Court established a standard a defendant must satisfy to compel extraction of GPS data by a defendant's third-party agent from a crime victim's automobile for the trial court's in camera inspection and held that remand was required in the instant case.Defendant was charged with the second-degree murder of Grant Draper, making his brother Lane Draper a victim by virtue of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-4401(12), a statute that implements the Arizona Constitution's Victims' Bill of Rights. During plea negotiations and without notice to Lane, Defendant obtained a court order to access GPS data to support his third-party defense identifying Lane as the possible killer and for cross-examination regarding the time Defendant argued he was asleep. The trial court allowed the data to be extracted for a limited in camera interview. Lane filed a petition for special action, which the court of appeals denied. The Supreme Court held (1) a defendant is entitled to discovery from a victim if the defendant seeks evidence of a constitutional dimension and the defendant establishes that the requested discovery is very likely to contain such evidence; and (2) remand was required in this case. View "Draper v. Honorable Gentry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten sex crimes against two sisters, A.S. and T.S., holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.The State charged Defendant with a total of twenty-two crimes against A.S. and T.S. The jury convicted him of ten of the charges, and the district court sentenced him to seventy-one to eighty-five years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the State violated his right to due process of law under Brady or Giglio; (2) Defendant did not show that his counsel performed deficiently or that his defense was prejudiced by counsel's actions at trial; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions for the first-degree sexual assault against T.S. View "Mills v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial following his successful motion for postconviction forensic and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, 2, holding that there was no error in the denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial.A jury convicted Defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme cruelty or atrocity, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Following multiple pro se motions, Defendant filed the instant motion for postconviction DNA analysis, which the court allowed. Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial. The motion judge denied the motion, concluding that the new evidence did not case real doubt on the justice of Defendant's conviction. Defendant then filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E for leave to appeal. A single justice granted the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Duguay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the record was insufficient to determine whether Defendant's right to a public trial was violated due to restrictions put in place by the district court arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.In December 2019, Defendant was charged with first-degree aggravated robbery. Because of the restrictions placed on trials due to the pandemic the county submitted a trial plan that excluded all spectators from the courtroom but included a one-way video feed that would broadcast the trial in an adjacent courtroom. The trial court overruled Defendant's objection, and the trial proceeded. After Defendant was convicted he moved for a new trial. The court of appeals denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that additional findings were required on the decision to close the courtroom before it could be determined whether Defendant's public trial right was violated. View "State v. Bell" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements recorded on a body-worn camera, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statements should be suppressed.In response to a domestic disturbance 911 call law enforcement officers found A.H. locked out of her apartment while Defendant was inside, and A.H. told the officers that Defendant had assaulted her both in the present and in the past. These statements were recorded by an officer's body-worn camera. Defendant was subsequently charged with one count of misdemeanor domestic assault. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress the body-worn camera recording on the grounds that their admission would violate Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in determining that A.H.'s statements did not qualify as excited utterances under Minn. R. Evid. 802(2); and (2) properly suppressed the statements as inadmissible hearsay. View "State v. Tapper" on Justia Law

Michigan State Police (MSP) detectives, assigned to investigate the 2011 Bates killing, learned that on the night of her murder, Bates was in her home with Jones and both of their boyfriends. Reed, Jones’s boyfriend, was charged. Jones said she did not want to testify and that “they” would kill her if she did. An assistant prosecutor saw Brown (Reed’s mother) following Jones as Jones cried, yelling that she “couldn’t go testify and she better not go in there.” Brown was arrested for witness intimidation. Brown was in jail for approximately 96 hours and was not brought before a judge for a probable cause hearing. MSP never requested a warrant for her arrest or took any other action relating to her detention.Brown sued the MSP defendants for violating her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity but, because of the “complicated factual scenario” did not determine at the summary judgment stage which defendants bore legal responsibility for violating her rights. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part. Under the totality of the circumstances, there was probable cause to arrest Brown. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. It was clearly established at the time of Brown’s arrest that her arresting officers had a duty to take her before a magistrate for a probable cause hearing; they are not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. View "Brown v. Knapp" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were arrested by Sheriff’s deputies for stashing their client’s cell phone in a bag only minutes before the police executed a search warrant for child pornography on that phone.  Plaintiffs alleged that District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney ordered the arrest. Following the arrest, the DA, in a statement to the press, and ADA, on the courthouse steps, publicly accused Plaintiffs of concealing evidence of a crime and knowingly possessing child pornography. After Plaintiffs were acquitted they filed this federal lawsuit for unlawful arrest. The district court entered judgment against the Deputies and denied the DA’s and ADA’s motion for summary judgment on the false arrest claim. The district court also denied the district attorneys’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ defamation claims.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ false arrest claims. The court wrote that on remand, the district court should determine whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the defamation claims. The court held that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to arrest Plaintiffs. The court explained it believes “a reasonable officer, looking at the entire legal landscape at the time of the arrests, could have interpreted the law as permitting the arrests here.” However, even if Defendants made their allegedly defamatory statements as part of their official duties, the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that state-agent immunity does not protect against intentional defamation. View "Megan Garcia, et al v. Pamela Casey, et al" on Justia Law