Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Patrick Jones Jr. was hired as a probationary deputy sheriff by the Lake County Sheriff’s Office and sent to a police training academy. During his training, Jones obtained a document from his girlfriend, believing it to be a study guide, and offered to share it with classmates. The document was actually a cheat sheet for a prior version of the Illinois state law enforcement exam. After an investigation by the training institute, which concluded Jones likely did not understand the document’s true nature, the Sheriff’s Office nonetheless terminated his employment. The termination letter, authored by Undersheriff Lawrence Oliver, cited Jones’s conduct as violating the office’s code of conduct and was distributed internally and to the office’s Merit Commission. Jones later struggled to find new law enforcement employment, attributing this difficulty to the termination letter.Jones filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the termination letter was defamatory and that it deprived him of occupational liberty in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff’s Office and Undersheriff Oliver, finding that Jones failed to show it was virtually impossible for him to find new employment and that the statements in the letter were either true or opinion, and that Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court held that the Sheriff’s Office was not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because Jones did not allege a policy or custom as required for municipal liability. The court further held that Jones’s occupational liberty claim failed because there was no evidence that Undersheriff Oliver publicly disclosed the termination letter. Finally, the court held that Undersheriff Oliver was entitled to absolute immunity under Illinois law for statements made within the scope of his official duties. View "Jones v. Lake County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

A prisoner at a Michigan correctional facility was involved in a physical altercation with another inmate, after which he was subdued and handcuffed by corrections officers. Two officers then escorted him through a hallway and into a prison yard. Upon entering the yard, the officers performed a takedown maneuver, throwing the prisoner to the ground and fracturing his foot. The prisoner claimed he did not resist or act aggressively before the takedown, while the officers asserted that he had lunged away, prompting their response. Surveillance footage captured much of the incident, but some key moments were obscured or unclear. The prisoner suffered significant injury as a result of the takedown.Following the incident, a prison misconduct hearing was held, and the hearing officer found the prisoner guilty of assaulting staff, relying heavily on the video evidence, which the prisoner was not permitted to view. The prisoner did not seek judicial review of this administrative finding. He then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, holding they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that the hearing officer’s factual findings should have preclusive effect and that the video evidence clearly contradicted the prisoner’s account.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the hearing officer’s findings should not have preclusive effect because the prisoner lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the facts, particularly due to his inability to access crucial evidence. The court also found that the video evidence did not so clearly contradict the prisoner’s version as to warrant summary judgment. The court concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force, and that the officers had forfeited the “clearly established” prong of their qualified immunity defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nash v. Bryce" on Justia Law

An inmate at the Louisiana State Penitentiary participated in the Angola Prison Rodeo from 1996 to 2019, selling leather belts and earning approximately $80,000. He alleged that prison officials confiscated about $16,000 of his earnings, claiming the deductions were for taxes, commissions, and maintenance fees. The inmate filed a grievance through the prison’s administrative process, arguing that the deductions were unauthorized and that he was denied a due process hearing regarding the seizure of his property. The prison denied his grievance, explaining the deductions, and the inmate exhausted his administrative remedies. He then sought relief in Louisiana state court through a petition for writ of mandamus, which remained unresolved for over a year.Subsequently, the inmate filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various prison officials conspired to deny him due process in connection with the confiscation of his property. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing any standalone claims regarding the denial of the prison grievance but allowed the conspiracy and due process claims to proceed. The district court adopted this recommendation, and the defendants appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the inmate’s complaint did not adequately allege a pre-deprivation due process claim and that, at the time of the alleged conduct, it was not clearly established that the inmate had a protected property interest in the proceeds from the sale of crafts made and sold under prison auspices. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Savage v. Westcott" on Justia Law

Jill Esche, who was seven months pregnant, was admitted to Renown Regional Medical Center in Nevada with severe hypertension and erratic behavior. Hospital staff, believing she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and her fetus, petitioned for her involuntary commitment under Nevada law. While the petition was pending, Esche was kept in the hospital, given psychiatric and medical treatment against her will, restricted from visitors and phone use, and not informed that a public defender had been appointed for her. After giving birth by C-section, the hospital decided to withdraw the commitment petition but allowed Esche to leave while she was still in fragile condition. She died outside near the hospital that night. Her estate and survivors sued the hospital and several staff members, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the defendants on some claims, including unreasonable seizure and procedural due process claims, but denied summary judgment on others, such as substantive due process, conspiracy, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims. The court also denied the defendants’ assertion of a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability, finding that the defense did not apply because the hospital was not required by law or directed by a public official to hold Esche involuntarily. Both sides appealed: the defendants challenged the denial of the good-faith defense, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of other constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s denial of the good-faith defense was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as the defense is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. The court dismissed both the defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Estate of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana" on Justia Law

A prospective employee applied for a position as an occupational therapist with a rehabilitation company, which required COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. The applicant requested a religious exemption, submitting a written statement and a supporting letter from a friend citing religious objections to vaccines developed with fetal cell lines. The company questioned the applicant about her vaccination history and, finding her responses insufficiently sincere, denied the exemption and rescinded the job offer. The applicant filed a complaint with the Kansas Department of Labor, which found the company had violated Kansas law by inquiring into the sincerity of her religious beliefs.The company sought judicial review in the Johnson District Court, which reversed the agency’s decision. The district court held that the relevant Kansas statute, which prohibits employers from inquiring into the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs when considering COVID-19 vaccine exemptions, was preempted by federal law—specifically, the federal Vaccine Mandate for Medicare and Medicaid providers and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court also found the Kansas statute violated due process because it lacked a rational basis.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the federal Vaccine Mandate and Title VII do not expressly or impliedly preempt the Kansas statute, because federal law permits but does not require employers to inquire into religious sincerity. The court further held that the Kansas law does not violate due process, as it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting religious liberty and provides adequate procedural protections. The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Powerback Rehabilitation v. Dept. of Labor" on Justia Law

A white man, after a dinner in Palm Harbor, Florida, targeted a Black man, his girlfriend, and his four-year-old daughter as they drove on a county-administered public road. The defendant, whom the victims did not know, repeatedly attempted to run their car off the road, shouted racial slurs, and made threatening gestures. At a red light, he exited his vehicle and physically confronted the Black man, continuing his racial abuse. Witnesses and police confirmed the defendant’s aggressive and racially charged conduct, and the defendant made further racist statements to law enforcement after his arrest. The defendant’s ex-girlfriend testified that such behavior was typical for him.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida indicted the defendant on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B), which prohibits racially motivated interference with the use of public facilities. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute exceeded Congress’s authority under the Thirteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause, and that the indictment violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied these motions. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to convict, it must find the defendant acted “because of” the victim’s use of the public road, applying a “but-for” causation standard. The jury found the defendant guilty on one count and not guilty on the other. The district court denied the defendant’s motions for acquittal and a new trial, and sentenced him to 24 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power under the Thirteenth Amendment, as Congress may rationally prohibit racially motivated violence interfering with public facilities as a badge or incident of slavery. The court also found no error in the jury instructions, the handling of jury questions, or the sufficiency of the evidence. The conviction was affirmed. View "United States v. Leahy" on Justia Law

A North Carolina police officer, Clarence Belton, was shot multiple times by fellow officer Heather Loveridge during the execution of a search warrant. The incident, which resulted in serious injuries to Belton and ended his law enforcement career, was captured on video and body camera footage. Belton sued Loveridge and the City of Charlotte, alleging excessive force and other claims. During the litigation, both parties moved to seal the video exhibits related to the shooting, and the district court granted these motions, placing the footage under seal.After the district court denied Loveridge’s motion for summary judgment, which was later vacated and remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, a local television station, WBTV, sought to intervene in the case to unseal the video footage. Belton supported WBTV’s motion, but Loveridge opposed it, arguing that unsealing would jeopardize her right to a fair trial. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied WBTV’s motion to intervene, citing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal, and also denied the motion to unseal, finding no right of access under the common law or the First Amendment and concluding that Loveridge’s fair trial rights outweighed any public interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of WBTV’s motion to intervene, agreeing that the district court lacked jurisdiction at that stage. However, the appellate court treated WBTV’s appeal regarding the sealing order as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court’s order sealing the video exhibits violated the First Amendment right of access to judicial records. The court vacated the sealing order and remanded with instructions to unseal the video footage, finding that Loveridge had not met her burden to justify continued sealing. View "Gray Media Group, Inc. v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Texas in 2010 for the killing of his fiancée’s thirteen-month-old daughter. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on DNA evidence and forensic testimony. Over the years, the petitioner pursued multiple avenues of postconviction relief, including direct appeal, state habeas petitions, and federal habeas petitions, all of which were denied. In 2024, he sought access to additional electronic DNA data from the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences, arguing that this information was necessary to evaluate the reliability of the forensic evidence used at trial. After being denied access by the district attorney and the convicting court, he filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Texas’ postconviction relief procedures violated his due process rights by giving prosecutors unreviewable discretion to withhold evidence.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the petitioner had not sufficiently alleged a due process violation and that his request for an injunction resembled an improper petition for a writ of mandamus. The district court also denied his motion for discovery. The petitioner appealed and, in the interim, sought a stay of execution and authorization to file a successive habeas petition based on new evidence and scientific developments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that Texas’ postconviction relief procedures do not violate due process, as they provide adequate opportunities for discovery and judicial review in habeas proceedings. The court also denied the motions for a stay of execution and for authorization to file a successive habeas petition, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the stringent requirements for such relief. The court granted leave to file a motion in excess of the word limit. View "In Re: Milam" on Justia Law

The case centers on a Florida farm and its owner, who had supplied produce to a local school district for several years. In June 2020, the owner posted controversial statements on his personal Facebook page, describing the COVID-19 pandemic as a “hoax” and making disparaging remarks about the Black Lives Matter movement and George Floyd. The school district, concerned about food safety during the early, uncertain days of the pandemic, requested information about the farm’s COVID-19 protocols. The response provided protocols from a subsidiary, not the farm itself, which the district found inadequate. Shortly after, the superintendent terminated the farm’s contract, citing concerns about the farm’s approach to COVID-19 safety.The farm and its owner sued the school district and board members in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging First Amendment retaliation and raising state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, applying the Pickering balancing test (typically used for government employees and contractors) and finding that the school district’s interests in food safety outweighed the plaintiffs’ free speech rights. The court also granted qualified immunity to individual defendants and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Eleventh Circuit held that, although the owner’s speech addressed matters of public concern, the evidence showed the contract was terminated due to genuine food safety concerns, not as punishment for the owner’s views on COVID-19 or racial issues. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the school district’s motivation and concluded that the district’s interest in student safety justified its actions. The summary judgment in favor of the school district was affirmed. View "Oakes Farms Food & Distribution Services, LLC v. Adkins" on Justia Law

During an oil pipeline protest in Hubbard County, Minnesota, Matthew Locke and another protestor locked themselves to construction equipment using a device known as a “sleeping dragon,” which made removal difficult. Law enforcement officers, including Sheriff Cory Aukes and Chief Deputy Scott Parks, responded to the scene. In their efforts to remove Locke, the officers used several pain compliance techniques, applying pressure to various nerves on Locke’s head and neck. Locke alleges that as a result, he suffered facial paralysis, tinnitus, and emotional distress. After being removed from the device by extraction teams, Locke was evaluated by EMTs, taken to the hospital, and then jailed.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Locke’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Minnesota law. The court held that Sheriff Aukes and Deputy Parks were entitled to qualified and official immunity, and that Locke’s complaint did not state a claim for municipal liability against Hubbard County. The district court also dismissed Locke’s state law claims for assault and battery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Eighth Circuit held that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, Locke plausibly alleged a violation of his clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, as the officers’ use of pain compliance techniques on a nonviolent, passively resisting misdemeanant was not objectively reasonable. The court also found that the district court erred in dismissing the official capacity claim without considering whether the sheriff was a final policymaker for the county. Additionally, the Eighth Circuit reversed the grant of official immunity on the state law claims, finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged willful violation of a known right. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Locke v. County of Hubbard" on Justia Law