Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Kelsey Carpenter gave birth to a baby girl at home, alone, after deciding that she would not risk having her child removed from her custody as had happened with her two older children when they tested positive for drugs after being delivered at the hospital. She again used drugs during her pregnancy. After Carpenter’s daughter was born, the baby struggled to breathe, and Carpenter attempted to provide her with CPR. Carpenter also cut the baby’s umbilical cord but did not clamp it, and the umbilical stump continued to bleed. Carpenter bathed, diapered, clothed, and attempted to breastfeed the baby before seemingly passing out. When she woke up, her newborn daughter was dead. Before Health & Saf. Code, § 123467(a) was effective, the State charged Carpenter with implied malice murder and felony child endangerment, contending that Carpenter intentionally chose an unattended at-home delivery, despite being warned of the dangers, in an effort to evade child welfare services and at the risk of her daughter’s life. According to the State, Carpenter’s acts and omissions, including her failure to seek medical assistance after realizing her baby was in distress, caused the baby to bleed to death. Carpenter challenged the superior court’s order denying her motion to set aside the information for lack of probable cause under Penal Code section 995. She contended she was immune from prosecution based on the new law, which went into effect after the preliminary hearing, but before the superior court ruled on her section 995 motion. While the Court of Appeal agreed that Carpenter could not be prosecuted for her decision to have an unattended home birth or any effect that her alleged drug use or lack of prenatal care during pregnancy may have had on her baby, the law did not preclude the State's prosecution for her acts and omissions after her daughter was born alive. The Court therefore denied Carpenter's petition. View "Carpenter v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

After a New Year’s Eve hit-and-run left one person dead and another injured, Jones became a suspect and turned himself in. During a recorded interrogation at 1:18 a.m., an officer read Jones his Miranda rights and fully explained those rights. Jones asked what penalty he was potentially facing. The officer refused to answer, asking multiple times if Jones wanted to proceed with questioning. The officer stated that others had placed him at the scene of the accident, police knew Jones fled because he was scared, Jones did the right thing coming in, and it was important for Jones to get his side of the story on record. After saying he felt horrible, Jones asked, “So y’all can get a public pretender right now?” After some laughter, a detective responded, “You said it right, pretender … they’re called public defenders.” After more chuckling, the detective said: “Obviously due to the time right now, we can’t.” At one point the detective stated that he believed the maximum punishment was 15 years. Jones then told the detectives what happened, implicating himself.The Wisconsin trial court denied his motion to suppress, concluding that Jones's joking reference to a “public pretender” cannot constitute a genuine request. A state appellate court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. Jones’s question about a lawyer, whether earnest or in jest, was too ambiguous to invoke his right to counsel under Supreme Court law. View "Jones v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

Doe is a transgender male who was born female. He had breast-removal surgery but no other gender-altering procedure. Doe’s partner is A.B., the mother of R.M. and four other children. Starke County Detective Gray, and Purtee, a family case manager with the Indiana Department of Child Services, met with 17-year-old R.M. to investigate allegations that Doe and A.B. had abandoned him. Ultimately, Doe and A.B. were arrested for neglect of a dependent and nonsupport of a dependent child. During subsequent interviews and proceedings, it was divulged that Doe was born female.After the charges were resolved with deferred prosecution agreements, Doe and A.B. sued the detective, the Sheriff’s Department, and Purtee under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of Doe’s right to privacy in sexual preference under the Fourteenth Amendment and that they were arrested without probable cause contrary to the Fourth Amendment. They later sought to amend their complaint to clarify that Doe’s Fourteenth Amendment claim pertained to the disclosure of gender identity not sexual preference. The district court denied the motion to amend and entered summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, as there is no clearly established right to privacy in one’s sexual preference or gender identity during a criminal or child welfare investigation. The totality of the circumstances provided probable cause for the arrests. View "Doe v. Gray" on Justia Law

An officer deployed pepper spray on Plaintiff and others during a protest in downtown St. Louis. Plaintiff sued various parties (collectively, “City Officials”), alleging various federal and Missouri law claims, including First Amendment retaliation. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the City Officials on some of the claims. As relevant to this interlocutory appeal, however, the district court concluded that neither the City nor one officer was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and therefore denied the motion in part. The district court also reserved a ruling on the City Officials’ motion for summary judgment on two state law claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded for the district court to resolve the motion on the state law claims. The court explained that based on Plaintiff’s interaction with the officer and taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, “a jury could find that the officer acted with the prohibited . . . malice” if he deployed the pepper spray with the ulterior motive of retaliation. Or a jury may determine that the officer’s actions upheld his duty, but the court explained that it has no basis to decide that factual question on an interlocutory appeal. However, the court remanded with instructions for the district court to reach the merits of the sovereign immunity issue as to the state law claims. View "Amir Brandy v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed rom the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of TrialCard, Inc. (“TrialCard”) on employment claims she brought under Mo. Stat. Section 213.055.1 (“MHRA”), 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (“Section 1981”), and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff’s “me too” evidence is likewise insufficient to establish TrialCard’s proffered reason for her termination was pretextual. This Court has noted that “me too” evidence of other discrimination victims can be relevant because “an employer’s past discriminatory policy and practice may well illustrate that the employer’s asserted reasons for disparate treatment are a pretext for intentional discrimination. Plaintiff’s “me too” evidence, however, is insufficient because she has not shown that these individuals received the same discipline under the same circumstances from the same person. Further, the court explained that Cigna repeatedly reached out to Plaintiff and her therapist about obtaining medical certification. Because Plaintiff failed to present evidence to support her FMLA claim, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of TrialCard. View "Lakeitha Boston v. TrialCard, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellants were each pepper-sprayed by Police Officer William Olsten while participating in a protest in downtown St. Louis. Each of them sued various officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation and excessive force claims, as well as various other federal and state law claims. In each case, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the city officials on all the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims.   The Eighth Circuit consolidated the cases and affirmed. The court explained that here, Appellants admit that “every other non-police officer in the vicinity was actively involved in a protest” and that the officer “moved his arm side to side and indiscriminately sprayed numerous protestors.” One cannot simultaneously single out Appellants and “indiscriminately” spray the crowd. And there is no evidence in the record that either Appellant had any interaction with the officer or that the officer was aware of their presence, or that either did anything to differentiate themselves from the other protestors in the crowd. While one Appellant argued she was filming the protest, there is no evidence that the officer observed her filming or deployed pepper spray in retaliation for her doing so. Regardless of whether the officer’s action was appropriate or reasonable under the circumstances, the lack of evidence causally connecting the officer’s adverse action of using pepper spray to Appellants’ protected expression is fatal to the retaliation claims. View "Rasheen Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, Missouri" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count of aggravated cruelty to animals, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant abandoned his argument that the district court erred when it allowed his wife to invoke spousal privilege in the presence of the jury; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted testimony and evidence from a witness who was not disclosed pretrial; (3) Defendant was not prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) Defendant failed to satisfy the plain error test as to his argument that the district court violated his right against self-incrimination under the Federal and Wyoming Constitutions when it ordered him to participate in the preparation of a presentence investigation as a condition of his bond. View "Berry v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, survivors and the administrator of a man shot and killed by Defendant police officers filed a lawsuit alleging claims of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and battery and negligence under Georgia law. And it demanded monetary damages. Both officers moved for summary judgment. They argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity from the claim of excessive force. They also argued that they are entitled to official immunity under Georgia law from the claims of battery and negligence. The district court denied the officers’ motions.   The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Defendants’ appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that it lacks appellate jurisdiction over the denial of qualified or official immunity that turns on issues of evidentiary sufficiency. The court explained that in this case, the only issues in this appeal are issues of evidentiary sufficiency. In their motions for summary judgment, the officers argued that their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances because they encountered a suspect who had brandished a gun, discharged it at least once, and ignored their commands to show his hands. The officers argued that in the light of these facts when they saw the man move, they had actual and probable cause to use deadly force on him. View "Joshua Paul English, et al v. Officer Jonathan Fowler, et al" on Justia Law

Inmate Arce got a sharp knee in the thigh while he was playing soccer at Illinois’s Pinckneyville Correctional Center in June 2017. Since then, he has suffered from severe leg pain, which the prison’s medical providers (Wexford) ultimately concluded was attributable to a blood clot. Arce’s blood clot was successfully treated but his pain persisted. Arce sued Wexford and two of its employees, claiming that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Arce claimed that he suffered from compartment syndrome and that failure to diagnose and treat this condition caused his long-term leg injury. But after five years and numerous visits to Wexford and non-Wexford health professionals, Arce has no evidence aside from his lay speculation that he experienced tissue necrosis in his thigh, the primary consequence of untreated compartment syndrome. Nor did Arce proffer any expert testimony or the results of any medical exam opining that his symptoms are consistent with untreated compartment syndrome. An orthopedist thought that he would benefit from further testing for that condition but Arce has not shown deliberate indifference in denying the recommended two-day follow-up appointment or that the denial was “a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards.” View "Arce v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the orders of the superior court granting Defendants' motions to suppress evidence of approximately ninety-four pounds of marijuana seized from one defendant's vehicle during a traffic stop, holding that the trial justice erred in granting Defendants' motions to suppress.Junjie Li was operating a vehicle and Zhong Kuang was in the passenger seat when a law enforcement officer initiated a traffic stop. While conversing with Li, the officer noticed Li began to exhibit nervous behavior and detected an order of marijuana coming from inside Kuang's vehicle. After a dog sniff, officers discovered marijuana. Li and Kuang moved, individually to suppress the marijuana. The trial justice granted the motions to suppress, holding that the extension of the traffic stop beyond its original scope was unreasonable because the officer did not have independent reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop. The Supreme Court vacated the superior court's orders, holding that the trial justice erred in concluding that the officer did not possess reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop based on the totality of the circumstances. View "State v. Li" on Justia Law