Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2016, John O. Kalu, an inmate at FCI Allenwood, alleged that he was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions by Lieutenant K. Middernatch. Kalu reported the first two incidents to Warden Spaulding, who responded that he would investigate but took no further action. Following his report, Kalu was placed in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and later returned to the general population, where he was assaulted a third time. Kalu also claimed that he was subjected to inhumane conditions of confinement, including being forced to sleep on a cold metal bunk in freezing temperatures without adequate clothing.Kalu filed a pro se complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Warden Spaulding and Lt. Middernatch, seeking damages under Bivens for violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed Kalu’s claims against Warden Spaulding for lack of personal involvement but allowed the sexual assault claim against Lt. Middernatch to proceed. Kalu later amended his complaint, but the District Court ultimately dismissed all claims, determining that they presented new Bivens contexts and that special factors counseled against extending Bivens remedies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The court held that Kalu’s Eighth Amendment sexual assault and conditions-of-confinement claims presented new Bivens contexts. It found that special factors, including the availability of alternative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program, Congress’s omission of a standalone damages remedy in the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and separation of powers principles, counseled against extending Bivens liability. The court also agreed that Kalu’s complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim against Warden Spaulding for deliberate indifference or failure to protect. View "Kalu v. Spaulding" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court issued a permanent injunction in 2013, followed by a supplemental injunction appointing an independent monitor to oversee MCSO’s compliance. In 2016, a second supplemental injunction required MCSO to reform its internal misconduct investigation procedures. In 2022, a third supplemental injunction found the Sheriff in contempt for non-compliance and set forth curative measures, including creating a Constitutional Policing Authority (CPA) and assigning its duties to the Monitor.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially issued the permanent injunction and subsequent supplemental injunctions. The court found MCSO in contempt for failing to comply with the injunctions and ordered additional remedial measures. The district court relied on its inherent equitable powers rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 in issuing these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s amended third supplemental permanent injunction. It held that the district court acted within its inherent equitable powers in assigning the CPA’s duties to the Monitor. The court rejected the Sheriff’s contention that this assignment violated Article III of the Constitution and separation of powers principles. It also found that the First Order provided adequate judicial review of the Monitor’s actions and that the Third Order did not contravene Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65’s specificity requirement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court’s actions were appropriate and affirmed the Third Order. View "MELENDRES V. SKINNER" on Justia Law

In June 2020, plaintiffs were arrested for violating a week-long nighttime curfew imposed by New York City in response to violence and destruction during demonstrations protesting George Floyd's death. They claimed the curfew violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, particularly the right to travel.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' § 1983 putative class action. The court determined that the curfew had to withstand strict scrutiny but concluded that it did so because it served a compelling governmental interest in curbing escalating crime and restoring public order and was narrowly tailored to that interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the curfew satisfied strict scrutiny. The court found that the curfew served a compelling state interest in reducing crime and restoring public order, which was escalating unpredictably across the city. The curfew was narrowly tailored, being limited in duration to one week, applied only during nighttime hours, and included exceptions for essential workers and homeless individuals. The court concluded that the curfew was the least restrictive means available to address the compelling public interest, given the circumstances of escalating violence and destruction. Thus, the plaintiffs' right-to-travel claim was dismissed as a matter of law. View "Jeffery v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The petitioner was arrested under a warrant for allegedly violating Maryland's juror intimidation statute. After a bench trial, the circuit court acquitted her based on its interpretation of the statute. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit against a sheriff’s deputy, claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and violations of her rights under the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The deputy had filed the application for charges after consulting with the State’s Attorney’s Office, which determined that the petitioner’s conduct violated the statute.The Circuit Court for Wicomico County granted summary judgment in favor of the State, ruling that the deputy could not be held civilly liable for the petitioner’s arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by a judicial officer. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed this decision, concluding that the warrant provided legal justification for the arrest and that the officers’ interpretation of the statute was objectively reasonable.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and upheld the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the State on the common law claims of malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment, as well as on the constitutional claims under Articles 24 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Court emphasized that when an arrest is made pursuant to a warrant, probable cause is predetermined by a judicial officer, creating a strong presumption of objective reasonableness. The petitioner failed to overcome this presumption.Additionally, the Court held that the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment on the petitioner’s claim that her arrest and imprisonment violated her free speech rights under Article 40. The Court found that the judicial officer had probable cause to believe that the petitioner’s speech constituted a “true threat” and thus fell outside the protections of Article 40. Finally, the Court upheld the circuit court’s ruling that the juror intimidation statute was not unconstitutionally vague. View "Rovin v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013 (Consent Act) in Montana, which requires minors to obtain parental consent or a judicial waiver to have an abortion. The plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman, argue that the Act violates the Montana Constitution by infringing on minors' fundamental rights to privacy and equal protection.The First Judicial District Court in Lewis and Clark County initially issued a preliminary injunction against the Consent Act, keeping the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 2011 (Notice Act) in effect. The District Court later granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood, ruling that the Consent Act violated the Montana Constitution. The court found that the Act was not narrowly tailored to achieve the State's compelling interests, such as protecting minors from sexual offenses, ensuring informed decision-making, and promoting parental rights. The court did not address the equal protection challenge but noted that the Notice Act, while serving similar ends, was less onerous.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that the Consent Act violates minors' fundamental rights to privacy and equal protection under the Montana Constitution. The Court found that the Act's classification between minors seeking abortions and those carrying pregnancies to term was unjustified. The State failed to demonstrate that the Act was narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests, such as protecting minors from sexual victimization, psychological and physical harm, and immaturity, or promoting parental rights. The Court also found that the judicial waiver provision did not save the Act, as it introduced unnecessary delays and burdens on minors seeking abortions.The Montana Supreme Court concluded that the Consent Act infringes on minors' fundamental rights without adequate justification and does not enhance their protection. Therefore, the Court held that the Consent Act is unconstitutional. View "Planned Parenthood v. State" on Justia Law

Four female hockey players filed a lawsuit against the University of North Dakota, alleging that the university violated Title IX by eliminating the women’s ice hockey program after the 2016-17 season. None of the plaintiffs were enrolled at the university at the time of the program's termination. They sought to represent a class of current, prospective, and future female students and requested a declaratory judgment and an injunction to reinstate the women’s hockey program.The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a "concrete" injury as required for standing under Article III.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that two plaintiffs, Calli Forsberg and Maya Tellmann, had standing. Forsberg was recruited to play for the university’s hockey team but chose another school after the program was cut. Tellmann, a two-time state hockey champion, was accepted as a student but had no opportunity to play due to the program's elimination. Both plaintiffs demonstrated a concrete injury by being denied the opportunity to compete for the team of their choice, and they expressed a definite intent to attend the university if the program were reinstated.The court found that the other two plaintiffs, Emily Becker and Morgan Stenseth, did not allege sufficient facts to establish standing. Becker did not provide details about her qualifications or acceptance to the university, and Stenseth did not express an intent to attend the university in the future.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing Forsberg and Tellmann’s claims to proceed, but affirmed the dismissal of Becker and Stenseth’s claims. View "Becker v. North Dakota University System" on Justia Law

Jesse Guardado confessed to the Walton County Sheriff’s Office that he had robbed and murdered Jackie Malone. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement or counsel, and was later appointed counsel for the penalty phase. A jury recommended the death penalty, and the state trial court sentenced him to death. Guardado filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence and for not challenging biased jurors.The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no prejudice from counsel's performance. The court determined that the additional mitigating evidence presented during postconviction proceedings was cumulative of the evidence presented at trial. It also found no actual bias in the jurors that Guardado claimed should have been challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Florida Supreme Court unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington by using a stricter "actual bias" standard instead of the reasonable probability standard for prejudice. However, upon de novo review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Guardado failed to show a substantial likelihood of a different outcome if the jurors had been challenged or if additional mitigating evidence had been presented. The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Guardado v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Gilead Community Services, Inc. and Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Inc. sued the Town of Cromwell and several of its officials for discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Gilead had purchased a house in Cromwell to be used as a group home for individuals with mental health disabilities. Following significant opposition from town residents and officials, including discriminatory statements and actions by the town's mayor and manager, Gilead was forced to close the group home. The town's actions included petitioning the Department of Public Health to deny a license for the home, issuing a cease-and-desist letter, and denying a tax exemption application.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut found the Town of Cromwell liable for violating the FHA and ADA, awarding $181,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The town appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a motivating-factor causation test to FHA claims, in subjecting the municipality to vicarious liability and punitive damages under the FHA, and that the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court rejected Cromwell's arguments regarding the causation standard, vicarious liability, and the availability of punitive damages under the FHA. The court held that motivating-factor causation applies to FHA claims, municipalities can be held vicariously liable under the FHA, and the FHA allows for punitive damages against municipalities. However, the court found the $5 million punitive damages award to be unconstitutionally excessive, given the high ratio of punitive to compensatory damages and the disparity with civil penalties for similar conduct.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in part, vacated the punitive damages award, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to grant a new trial on punitive damages unless Gilead agrees to a remittitur reducing the punitive damages to $2 million. View "Gilead Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Cromwell" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Basel Soukaneh, alleged that during a routine traffic stop, Officer Nicholas Andrzejewski of the Waterbury, Connecticut police department unlawfully handcuffed and detained him in a police vehicle for over half an hour and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle. Soukaneh had presented a valid firearms permit and disclosed the presence of a firearm in his vehicle. Andrzejewski argued that the presence of the firearm gave him probable cause to detain Soukaneh and search his vehicle.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut partially granted and partially denied Andrzejewski’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the initial stop was justified based on reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation. However, it denied summary judgment regarding the handcuffing and prolonged detention of Soukaneh, as well as the searches of the vehicle and trunk, concluding that Andrzejewski did not have the requisite probable cause and was not entitled to qualified immunity for these actions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Andrzejewski violated Soukaneh’s Fourth Amendment rights by detaining him in a manner and for a length of time that constituted a de facto arrest without probable cause. The court also found that the warrantless searches of Soukaneh’s vehicle and trunk were not justified under the automobile exception or as a Terry frisk, as there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband or evidence of a crime. Consequently, Andrzejewski was not entitled to qualified immunity for his actions. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Soukaneh v. Andrzejewski" on Justia Law

Three individuals, Jamarr Smith, Thomas Iroko Ayodele, and Gilbert McThunel, were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The convictions were based on evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, which collected location data from Google to identify suspects. The robbery involved the theft of $60,706 from a U.S. Postal Service route driver, Sylvester Cobbs, who was attacked with pepper spray and a handgun. Video footage and witness testimony linked the suspects to the crime scene, but no arrests were made immediately. Investigators later used a geofence warrant to gather location data from Google, which led to the identification of the suspects.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant. The defendants argued that the warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause and particularity, and that the government did not follow proper legal procedures in obtaining additional information from Google. The district court found that law enforcement acted in good faith and denied the motion to suppress. The defendants were subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 121 to 136 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that geofence warrants, as used in this case, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they resemble general warrants, which are prohibited. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, citing the good-faith exception. The court concluded that law enforcement acted reasonably given the novelty of the geofence warrant and the lack of clear legal precedent. Therefore, the convictions were upheld. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law