Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the circuit court on postconviction review ordering a new trial for Petitioner, holding that Petitioner was provided ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to object to the trial court's order prohibiting any consultation about the case (a no-communication order) between Petitioner and trial counsel under the circumstances of this case.At issue was a no-communication order entered into between Petitioner and trial counsel during an overnight recess prior to the final day of testimony in Petitioner's murder trial and trial counsel's failure to object to the order. The circuit court ruled that the no-communication order, and trial counsel's failure to object, deprived Petitioner of the assistance of counsel, in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and presumed prejudice, thus ordering a new trial. The appellate court reversed, concluding that Petitioner could not show prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) trial counsel's conduct in this case resulted in the actual denial of the assistance of counsel, and prejudice was presumed; and (2) therefore, the circuit court properly ordered a new trial for Petitioner. View "Clark v. State" on Justia Law

Three individuals filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Wayne County has a policy or practice of seizing vehicles and their contents without probable cause, simply because of the vehicle’s location in an area generally associated with crime. Wayne County impounds the vehicles and their contents until the owner pays a redemption fee: $900 for the first seizure, $1,800 for the second, and $2,700 for the third, plus towing and storage fees. The owner's only alternatives are to abandon the vehicle or to wait for prosecutors to decide whether to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings. Before a forfeiture action is brought, there are multiple pretrial conferences involving the owner and prosecutors, without a judge; prosecutors attempt to persuade the owner to pay the fee by pointing out that storage fees accrue daily. Missing just one conference results in automatic forfeiture. It takes at least four months, beyond any previous delays to arrive before a neutral decisionmaker. The seizure proceedings are conducted under Michigan’s Nuisance Abatement statute, the Controlled Substances Act, and the Omnibus Forfeiture Act, which do not protect plaintiffs from the pre-hearing deprivation of their properties.The Sixth Circuit held that Wayne County violated the Constitution when it seized plaintiffs’ personal vehicles—which were vital to their transportation and livelihoods— with no timely process to contest the seizure. Wayne County was required to provide an interim hearing within two weeks to test the probable validity of the deprivation. View "Ingram v. Wayne County, Michigan" on Justia Law

Appellant was civilly committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 4246 in February 2009 due to a mental disease or defect that created a substantial risk of harm to the public. After several conditional releases and revocations, in April 2022, and while represented by counsel, Appellant filed a motion for discharge pro se, which the district court denied on the basis that a motion for discharge may not be filed by a pro se petitioner. Appellant appealed, asserting that prohibiting him from seeking a discharge pro se is a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights.The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Section 4247(h) provides the process by which a civilly committed person may seek a discharge. The provision plainly permits only counsel or the legal guardian of the committed person to file a motion to discharge Accordingly, it follows that a committed person may not file such a motion pro se. The court explained that Appellant asserts that this amounts to a denial of access to the courts. The court wrote that it has previously addressed the Sixth Amendment right of self-representation in the context of civil commitment, concluding that this right does not apply to civil commitment proceedings. Further, the court explained that even assuming that the right of self-representation applies to a Fifth Amendment access-to-the-courts claim, Appellant’s claim would still fail because he cannot show the requisite prejudice. View "United States v. Luis Vazques" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs and one count of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs and finding that $1,500 was subject to criminal forfeiture, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) Defendant's claim that his right to a speedy trial was violation under the Maine Constitution failed because he did not adequately assert his right, and his speedy trial claim under the United States Constitution failed under obvious error review; (2) Defendant's claim under the Maine Constitution that evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of a search warrant was inadmissible was unpreserved, and his claim under the United States Constitution that the warrants were not supported by probable cause failed; and (3) Defendant's last argument on appeal was unavailing. View "State v. Norris" on Justia Law

A 911 call, reported that “the people that live behind me” were “yelling and what sounds like him hitting something.” Officers Curtis and Gray responded to the address, wearing activated body cameras. Not seeing or hearing anything amiss outside, they knocked. Reed answered the door. Gray asked, “Do you mind stepping out here and talking to me for a second?” Reed asked, “you got a warrant?” Gray replied, “nope,” explaining that “somebody called and said that somebody was fighting.” Reed said, “Wasn’t here.” After additional discussion, Gray stated they needed to talk to other adults in the house; “if not, then we can come in … exigent circumstances.” Reed closed his door. The officers kicked the door down. Curtis stepped inside, drew his firearm, pointed it at Reed’s head. then put the gun away, and pulled Reed outside. Gray pushed Reed against the car and patted him down. Other officers arrived and spoke with Reed’s family. Satisfied that everyone in Reed’s house was safe, the officers documented the damage to Reed’s door and left.The district court dismissed 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against Campbell County and against the officers in their official capacities; dismissed a Terry claim as “duplicative” of a false arrest claim; dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and declined to award the officers qualified immunity on the individual capacity unlawful-entry, excessive-force, and false-arrest claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that the officers violated clearly established constitutional rights. View "Reed v. Campbell County, Kentucky" on Justia Law

Philadelphia Police obtained a search warrant for the house where Dennis resided, suspecting that it was being used for drug activity. Dennis was not home. Six officers performing surveillance were in plain clothes “to maintain an advantage.” They spotted Dennis driving near his house and decided to stop his car. The ensuing events were captured by a nearby surveillance camera. The plainclothes officers in unmarked police cars surrounded Dennis’s vehicle at an intersection. For 48 seconds, Dennis attempted to free his car, bumping into the police vehicles. When Dennis’s car appeared to have stopped, Officer Nicoletti shot Dennis, who was unarmed, three times through the driver’s window. Dennis died at the scene.In the ensuing lawsuit (42 U.S.C. 1983), the court found open questions of fact concerning excessive force claims against Philadelphia and Nicoletti, regarding whether Dennis posed a threat to the officers or public safety. The court denied Nicoletti qualified immunity, reasoning that his conduct: “sho[oting] at an unarmed driver attempting to escape at slow speed who had hit a car,” and/or “using deadly force against an individual driving a car” when “the driver did not pose a threat to the safety of the officer or others,” violated clearly established law. The Third Circuit affirmed, declining to consider Nicoletti’s factual arguments and rejecting any arguments that could be construed as a legal challenge to the holding that his conduct violated clearly established law. View "Rush v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Two police officers were dispatched to a gym after a man reportedly threatened gym patrons and assaulted a security guard. The suspect then violently attacked the officers and refused to stop after they repeatedly deployed their tasers. One officer eventually resorted to lethal force to end the aggression. Plaintiff, the man’s mother, filed this lawsuit against Defendant and the City of Los Angeles. She claimed a violation of Section 1983 based on the officer’s allegedly unreasonable use of deadly force. She also sought to hold the City liable under Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services. Plaintiff further brought wrongful death actions against the officer and the City under California law. The court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s state law claims for similar reasons. Defendant appealed.   The Ninth Circuit reversed. The panel held that because Defendant did not challenge the district court’s determination that a reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant violated the man’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, this appeal turned solely on the second step of the qualified immunity analysis. The panel held that Defendant’s use of deadly force, including his failure to give a warning that he would be using such force, did not violate clearly established law given the specific circumstances he encountered. The court wrote that there was no basis to conclude that Defendant’s use of force here was obviously constitutionally excessive. View "PAULETTE SMITH V. EDWARD AGDEPPA, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an adjunct professor of economics at SUNY Albany, alleged that his failure to advance within his department to his colleagues’ unfavorable view of the methodology he employs in his scholarship. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants, two of Plaintiff’s colleagues who were involved in the hiring decisions at issue. Plaintiff asserted three causes of action: (1) a claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 ; (2) a claim pursuant to Section 1983 for injunctive relief against SUNY Albany President in the form of a court order to “prevent ongoing discrimination against Keynesian economists” in violation of the First Amendment; and (3) an age discrimination claim under New York State’s Human Rights Law. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that while it disagrees with much of the district court’s reasoning, it nonetheless agrees with its ultimate disposition. The court held that Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), does not apply to speech related to academic scholarship or teaching and that Plaintiff’s speech addressed matters of public concern, but that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim nonetheless fails because under Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968), a public university’s interest in deciding for itself what skills, expertise, and academic perspectives it wishes to prioritize in its hiring and staffing decisions outweighs Plaintiff's asserted interest in competing for academic positions unencumbered by university decisionmakers’ assessment of his academic speech. View "Heim v. Daniel" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, Tufts University, on summary judgment and refusing to alter to amend that ruling under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), holding that there was no error.Plaintiff sued Tufts, her former employer, alleging that she was denied a full professor position on the basis of sex discrimination and/or retaliation for engaging in protected conduct in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, specifically, for her filing a claim of sexual harassment. The district court granted summary judgment for Tufts. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Tufts on Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims; and (2) did not err in denying Plaintiff's motion for an altered or amended judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). View "Ing v. Tufts University" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the post-conviction court denying Defendant's petition for post-conviction relief, holding that the post-conviction court did not err in ruling that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance and that the State had not violated its Brady obligations during the underlying proceedings, holding that there was no error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of distribution of heroin and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. The appellate court affirmed. Defendant later filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. On appeal, the appellate court certified questions of law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered (1) the post-conviction court did not err in ruling that trial counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move production of certain evidence; and (2) assuming, without deciding, that the State was required to disclose challenged impeachment evidence prior to the hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress, Defendant failed to establish the Brady materiality standard. View "Blake v. State" on Justia Law