Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Marvin’s mother called the police to perform a wellness check; she thought Marvin, age 21, was suicidal. St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Deputies arrived at Marvin’s home and found his mother in the driveway with a bleeding lip. She stated that Marvin had hit her with a chair. The officers approached the house to speak with Marvin, who declined to exit the house. During the confrontation, the deputies saw Marvin’s father remove a box cutter from Marvin’s pocket. They pulled him from the doorway and wrestled him to the ground. While he resisted, they tased him twice and struck him several times. Marvin sued the deputies for unlawful entry and excessive force. Marvin admitted that he was uncooperative but claimed he was not threatening or violent and that he suffered a concussion and a broken toe.Marvin brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the deputies for unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the unlawful entry claims against Officer Corban, who had not helped pull Marvin from his house, and the excessive force claims against Officer Lawson-Rulli, who was not involved in tasing or hitting Marvin. Corban and Holcomb’s use of force was reasonable as a matter of law. The court also affirmed a defense verdict on Marvin’s unlawful entry claims against Holcomb and Lawson-Rulli. View "Marvin v. Holcomb" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles (the “City”) brought an action against Plaintiffs for abatement, unfair competition, and public nuisance regarding their ownership of a motel. Plaintiffs appealed from the district court’s dismissal of their first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. After the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’s Department”) seized $98,000 from Plaintiffs pursuant to a state court judgment, Plaintiffs brought this 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action alleging that the failure to provide pre-seizure notice violated their constitutional rights.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing. The panel concluded that the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of procedural due process. The panel considered the Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), factors. First, the competing interests strongly weighed against a conclusion that Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights were violated. The City as creditor had a clear interest in collecting the money judgment because it prevailed before the California trial court and on appeal, and Plaintiffs did not allege that the funds were exempt or were needed for subsistence. Second, the risk of erroneous deprivation under California’s procedures was small because the procedures required the clerk of the court only to transcribe the amount of the money judgment and take account of statutory defenses like the exemptions asserted by a judgment debtor. Finally, given the small risk of erroneous deprivation, the value of the substitute procedure proposed by Plaintiffs did not outweigh the strong interests of the City. View "NANUBHAI PATEL, ET AL V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL" on Justia Law

In 2018, Plaintiff filed a federal Terry action against the City of Pasadena and several of its police officers seeking to recover for the death of Reginald Thomas, a father figure to Plaintiff. The Terry action, which included a section 1983 claim, was dismissed with prejudice for lack of Article III standing in 2019. Plaintiff then filed a nearly identical lawsuit in California state court, which the Defendants removed to federal court and successfully moved to dismiss based on issue preclusion.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Section 1983 action brought against Defendants. The panel held that a plain reading of the first district court’s judgment established that Article III standing was actually litigated and decided, although erroneously. However, erroneous, unappealed judgments are still owed preclusive effect. The panel concluded that issue preclusion was available, and Plaintiff was bound by the prior standing determination. While issue preclusion was available, the panel held that the Defendants waived issue preclusion by removing the refiled case to federal court because a removing defendant voluntarily invokes and acquiesces to the federal courts and bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction and Article III standing. Accordingly, the panel vacated and remanded to the second and current district court to determine, in the first instance, whether jurisdiction lies in the federal courts and whether Plaintiff adequately stated a claim if the Defendants pursue such an argument on remand. View "SHANE LOVE V. AARON VILLACANA, ET AL" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and dismissed his appeal failure to pay filing fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1911–14. The court barred Plaintiff from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury as defined by Section 1915(g).   The Fifth Circuit denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP and dismissed his appeal for failure to pay the required filing fees. The court held that that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed IFP. He has accumulated more than three strikes and has failed to demonstrate imminent danger in this case. The court barred him from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury as defined by Section 1915(g). Alternatively, he may pay the appropriate fees. He may resume any claims dismissed under Section 1915(g), if he decides to pursue them, under the fee provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sections 1911–14. View "Prescott v. UTMB" on Justia Law

Tennessee enacted the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, citing concerns that gender dysphoria treatments “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences” while less risky, non-irreversible treatments remain available. Prohibited procedures include surgically removing, modifying, or entering into tissues, cavities, or organs and prescribing or dispensing any puberty blocker or hormone with exceptions for treating congenital defects, precocious puberty, disease, physical injury, and continuation of ongoing treatment. It provides for professional discipline of healthcare providers and creates a private right of action.The district court entered a preliminary injunction, finding that the challengers lacked standing to contest the surgery ban but that the ban on hormones and puberty blockers infringes the parents’ “fundamental right” to direct their children’s medical care, improperly discriminates on the basis of sex, that transgender persons constitute a quasi-suspect class, and that the state could not satisfy the necessary justifications.The Sixth Circuit stayed the injunction, finding that Tennessee is likely to succeed on appeal. The district court erred in its facial invalidation of the law, as opposed to an as-applied invalidation. “Life-tenured federal judges should be wary of removing a vexing and novel topic of medical debate from the ebbs and flows of democracy by construing a largely unamendable federal constitution to occupy the field.” A right to new medical treatments is not “deeply rooted" in history and traditions. Tennessee could rationally exercise caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of children. View "L. W. v. Skrmetti" on Justia Law

In 2012, Horton was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm crimes. Horton had been convicted of four prior state drug felonies. The court imposed three concurrent life sentences. Horton’s direct appeal and collateral relief motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, failed. Under 2255(h) a successive motion is permitted only if it contains “newly discovered evidence” of innocence or is based on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” Horton filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, citing the “saving clause,” 28 U.S.C. 2255(e); a 2241 motion “shall not be entertained” unless the remedy by motion under 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”The Seventh Circuit previously held (Davenport) that 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective”— and 2241 is available—when the limits on successive 2255 motions bar relief and the prisoner’s claim is based on a new interpretation of a criminal statute that was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent. Horton's Davenport claim challenged his sentences based on the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision.In the interim, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Hendrix, (2022): The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy 2255’s conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all." The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, abrogating Davenport. View "Horton v. Lovett" on Justia Law

Sanders was convicted in 2006 of firearms offenses. The court imposed an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on three prior convictions, including one for Illinois residential burglary. His direct appeal and 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for collateral relief failed. Sanders has three times unsuccessfully sought permission to file a successive 2255 motion. A successive motion is permitted only if it contains “newly discovered evidence” of innocence or is based on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.”Sanders filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition, citing the “saving clause.” 28 U.S.C. 2255(e); A federal prisoner’s 2241 motion “shall not be entertained” unless the remedy by motion under 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Seventh Circuit precedent (Davenport) applied the saving-clause gateway to habeas claims premised on a new interpretation of a criminal statute that was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent. Sanders’s Davenport claim challenged his ACCA-enhanced sentence based on the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision.The district judge denied relief. The Supreme Court held, in Jones v. Hendrix, (2022): The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy the 2255 conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, abrogating Davenport. View "Sanders v. Joseph" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the decision of the circuit circuit court that examination of data contained on Defendant's hard drive was not a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, holding that the government violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in this case.Defendant voluntarily consented to government agents seizing his laptop computer, creating a copy of its hard drive, and searching the data on it. After the copy was made but before the government examined the data Defendant withdrew his consent. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence from the forensic examination of the copy of his laptop's hard drive. The circuit court denied the motion. On appeal, Defendant asserted that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the mirror-image copy of his laptop hard drive. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data contained on his hard drive; (2) because the government did not examine the data before Defendant withdrew his consent Defendant did not lose his reasonable expectation of privacy in the data; and (3) the government conducted an unreasonable search by examining the data without any authority to do so. View "State v. McDonnell" on Justia Law

While serving a 55-year sentence for murder, Love assaulted a correctional officer, resulting in state convictions for felony battery. The Indiana Department of Correction also found Love guilty of violating prison rules and imposed sanctions including revocation of 5,700 days of his accrued good time credit, which extended Love’s release date by more than 15 years. Love unsuccessfully pursued prison appeals. The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Love procedurally defaulted his constitutional claims and forfeited them by failing to present them in administrative proceedings or the district court.One argument concerned Executive Directive 17-09, under which the Department must revoke all accrued good time credit from inmates found guilty of qualifying offenses. There is no additional hearing; the inmate is not provided an opportunity to argue why revocation of less time is appropriate. Love argued that the Department cannot, consistent with due process, predetermine how it will use its discretionary power over sanctions without first considering arguments in mitigation. Love also argued that Directive 17-09 is facially arbitrary in tying punishment to the amount of good time credit an inmate has rather than the severity of his misconduct. Love offered two examples where other inmates presumably should have been punished in accordance with the Directive but were allegedly shown leniency instead. View "Love v. Vanihel" on Justia Law

In 2007, Hogsett was convicted of crimes, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court found that Hogsett was an armed career criminal, with three prior convictions for violent felonies, and sentenced him to 295 months. In 2021, the Supreme Court (Borden) interpreted “violent felony” in 924(e) to exclude crimes that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness. Hogsett sought to challenge his sentence under Borden. To collaterally attack a conviction or sentence, a federal prisoner files a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, not a habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2241. Hogsett had filed a 2255 motion in 2010. A prisoner can only file another 2255 motion in two circumstances: newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish innocence or a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Hogsett argued that he was eligible to file under 2255(e), the “saving clause,” which applies when “the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”The Seventh Circuit ordered the dismissal of Hogsett’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court’s intervening Jones holding: “The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy” 2255(h)’s requirements “does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause … he cannot bring it at all.” Borden is a statutory interpretation decision. View "Hogsett v. Lillard" on Justia Law