Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs and falsifying physical evidence, entered after a jury trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as the result of what Defendant argued was an unlawful arrest; (2) there was no obvious error in the admission of lay opinion testimony by law enforcement officers on certain matters; (3) the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial court's giving a permissible-inference instruction; and (4) there was no error or abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion for new trial and for judgment of acquittal. View "State v. Abdullahi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs individually and as next friends of their minor daughter, I.B., appealed the district court’s dismissal of disability discrimination and civil rights deprivation claims, and denial of their motion to reconsider dismissing with prejudice a state law negligence claim against the Bentonville, Arkansas School District (“the District”).   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Arkansas law provides a direct cause of action against the liability insurer of a school district that is “not subject to suit for tort.” Plaintiffs’ Complaint named “John Doe” as an additional defendant, alleged on information and belief that the District maintained liability insurance, identified the insurer as John Doe, and stated that “the joinder of [John Doe] will be made upon verification of its identity.” Eleven months later, the district court ordered Plaintiffs to show good cause for an extension of the deadline to add parties, if they opposed dismissal of the John Doe defendant without prejudice. When Plaintiffs did not respond, the district court dismissed John Doe without prejudice, leaving the District, with its statutory immunity, the only negligence defendant. Plaintiffs were not deprived of a remedy for the alleged negligence of District employees and agents. View "Rodney Baker v. Bentonville School District" on Justia Law

Booker was convicted of first-degree murder and received a 55-year sentence of 55. After unsuccessfully appealing his conviction, he tried a petition for postconviction relief. At the latter stage, he was represented by Illinois Assistant Appellate Defender Reyna. Booker wanted Reyna to argue that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. Reyna declined. Booker filed a pro se supplemental brief raising the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. The Illinois Appellate Court rejected Booker’s pro se brief because of the state’s rule against hybrid representation.Booker then filed a federal habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted, reasoning that Illinois courts did not violate any federal rule when they denied his attempt to raise the issue in a pro se supplemental brief. The court also held that Booker’s default could not be excused on actual innocence grounds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Booker must bear the consequences of his decision. Even if Reyna’s advice was not entirely accurate regarding his chances of success, Booker had proceeded pro se in the past and knew that he could do so again to ensure that his preferred arguments were raised, or he could hope that the court would make an exception to the rule against hybrid representation. View "Booker v. Baker" on Justia Law

Beauchamp had cerebral palsy. Her mother found Beauchamp unresponsive and called 911. Minutes later, four “First Responders” arrived and attempted CPR and ventilation. After about 30 minutes, they discontinued those efforts and declared her dead. They also called a doctor to obtain permission to stop trying resuscitation, although they had stopped resuscitative efforts five minutes earlier. Numerous medical indicators showed that Beauchamp was not dead—her capnography indicated continued respiration, her cardiac monitor showed electrical activity, and her breathing and pulse were perceptible to her family members. Despite inquiries by Beauchamp’s family members, police officers, and a funeral home employee, the First Responders repeated that Beauchamp was dead, explaining the signs of life as reactions to medication. The funeral home employee placed Beauchamp in a body bag and went to the funeral home. An embalmer saw Beauchamp gasping for air with her eyes open and her chest moving and called 911. At the hospital, doctors determined that Beauchamp was alive but had suffered an anoxic brain injury. Beauchamp remained on a ventilator in a vegetative state and died weeks later.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to Beauchamp’s serious medical need. The individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and the city is not liable for any constitutional violation. View "Linden v. City of Southfield, Michigan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants L.A. Central Plaza LLC and Central Liquor & Market, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). After Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the merits, the district court instead sua sponte dismissed the case on the ground that Plaintiff’s amended complaint had failed adequately to plead the elements of Article III standing. Plaintiff timely appealed the dismissal.   The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. The panel held that because Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to prove his case as to standing, the district court had discretion in resolving Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, to also consider sua sponte whether to grant summary judgment against Jones on the issue of standing. The panel held, however, that when presented with the issue of standing in the context of Plaintiff’s fully briefed summary judgment motion, the district court could not ignore the factual evidence of standing presented at summary judgment and instead sua sponte examine the adequacy of the complaint’s allegations of standing. View "GEORGE JONES V. L.A. CENTRAL PLAZA, LLC, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) was dismissed for lack of standing. Thereafter, the district court considered and granted Malibu Road and Bungalow Lighting’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the ADA’s fee provision. Plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of his ADA claim for lack of standing, but he appeals the award of attorneys’ fees, arguing that his lawsuit was not frivolous. However, the issue before the court was not whether Plaintiff’s claim was frivolous and therefore justified an award of fees, but rather whether there is a basis to award attorneys’ fees under the ADA’s fee provision after the underlying claim has been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.   The Ninth Circuit reversed and vacated. The panel held that because the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for lack of standing, it lacked jurisdiction to award fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s fee provision, 42 U.S.C. Section 12205 View "ANTONIO FERNANDEZ V. 23676-23726 MALIBU ROAD, LLC, ET AL" on Justia Law

Dixon Correctional Center Officer Brinkmeier informed inmate Walker that prison policy prohibited prisoners from maintaining “unsearchable” hairstyles like dreadlocks. Walker told Brinkmeier that he was a Rastafarian and had taken a vow not to cut his hair. Brinkmeier later returned with another officer and again ordered Walker to cut his dreadlocks. The officers disciplined Walker for his disobedience, placing him in segregated housing for several days. Walker submitted an emergency grievance, which was denied without explanation. Walker was told that if he did not acquiesce, a tactical unit would forcibly remove his dreadlocks. Walker allowed the prison barber to shave his hair. Walker regrew his dreadlocks and kept them for three years. During security checks, officers ran their gloved hands through his dreadlocks. When he was released from Dixon, Walker’s dreadlocks were roughly the same length as they had been when he entered prison.Walker sued for violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1. The district court noted that under Circuit precedent, Walker could not seek monetary damages against individual defendants under RLUIPA; “the only relief available under RLUIPA,” injunctive relief, was moot because Walker had been released. The court also granted the defendants summary judgment on Walker’s First Amendment claim, citing qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal, finding that Walker abandoned his RLUIPA damages claim. View "Walker v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claims against various Arkansas Department of Corrections staff members for damages stemming from injuries that he received when he was beaten by another inmate. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to protect him from the beating. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim on summary judgment, finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies even though he remained hospitalized from his injuries until the time for filing expired. At issue is whether the district court erred in dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court concluded that the district court’s rant of summary judgment was premature. The court explained that the district court legally erred in declining to decide whether administrative remedies were “unavailable” to Plaintiff. As the Supreme Court stressed in Ross, the PLRA “contains its own textual exception to mandatory exhaustion.” The court explained that under the PLRA, the exhaustion requirement hinges on the ‘availability’ of administrative remedies. The court reversed because the district court declined to decide whether the prison’s grievance procedure was unavailable to Plaintiff. View "John Smith v. Jeremy Andrews" on Justia Law

Fehlman was the Neillsville Police Department’s interim police chief in 2019. In 2020, Mankowski was hired as the permanent chief. Fehlman returned to being a rank-and-file officer. Over the next several months, Fehlman raised concerns about the management of the department, which Mankowski rebuffed. Fehlman and other officers requested a meeting with the Police & Fire Commission (PFC), where Fehlman raised concerns that Mankowski instilled fear in officers; Mankowski lacked professionalism and, while on duty, told a bar owner that he should consider having the owner’s wife dance topless; Mankowski ordered officers to turn off their body cameras in violation of department policy; Mankowski verbally abused suspects; Mankowski changed radio talk procedures in ways that threatened officer safety; Mankowski prioritized speed limit enforcement over responding to an allegation of child abuse at a school.Mankowski subsequently harassed Fehlman, taking away his work credit card and threatening charges of insubordination. Fehlman resigned from the NPD. Mankowski allegedly interfered with Fehlman’s job search by making false, negative comments (Fehlman was hired nonetheless). Fehlman also discovered that his NPD personnel file had been altered and that Mankowski gave information to the unemployment compensation office that led to a delay in benefits.Fehlman sued Mankowski under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his complaint. Fehlman’s statements to the PFC were made in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen. View "Fehlman v. Mankowski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that indefinite sentencing under the "Reagan Tokes Law," which became effective in March 2019 and requires that for certain felony offenses a sentencing court impose on the offender an indefinite sentence consisting of a minimum and a maximum prison term, is not unconstitutional.The two appellants in this case - Christopher Hacker and Danan Simmons - were both subject to sentencing under the Reagan Tokes Law. On appeal, Appellants argued that Ohio Rev. Code 2967.271, which allows the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to maintain an offender's incarceration beyond the minimum prison term imposed by a trial court, violates the separation of powers doctrine, procedural due process, and the right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that Appellants failed to rebut the Reagan Tokes Law's presumption of constitutionality in their facial challenge. View "State v. Hacker" on Justia Law