Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Courtney was sentenced to three years in state prison followed by one year of supervised release for violating an earlier term of parole by failing to register as a sex offender. Courtney’s supervised release was revoked before he left prison. The stated reason was not that he had acted wrongly but that he had no arrangements for a place to live that state officials deemed suitable. Courtney spent his year of supervised release in prison.Courtney brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the defendants failed to investigate his proposed living arrangements and ignored his grievances and that his release was revoked without evidence that he violated any terms of release and without adequate procedural protections. The district court dismissed Courtney’s claims as barred by the Supreme Court’s 1994 “Heck” decision, which forecloses civil litigation that would call into question the validity of a state criminal conviction or sentence that has not been set aside or that would call into question the validity of parole revocation, at least when the revocation is based on the parolee’s wrongdoing.The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part but remanded the claims based on the defendants’ failure to do their jobs. Courtney’s claims that the defendants, after his parole revocation, ignored his grievances and communications regarding possible host sites, if substantiated, would not necessarily imply that the Prison Review Board’s decision to revoke his parole was invalid. Courtney’s claims concerning the defendants’ inaction before that date are similar to seeking a writ of mandamus, not like seeking habeas corpus relief, and would not “necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” View "Courtney v. Butler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of two counts of murder in the first degree on the theory of premeditation as to Mark Greenlaw and Jennifer O'Connor and on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty as to O'Connor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial regarding the victim's fear of rape; (2) the prosecutor's statement during closing argument impermissibly appeal to the jury's sympathy, but the statement did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider voluntary ingestion of drugs in determining extreme atrocity or cruelty, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (4) the judge did not err in excusing juror number fifteen; (5) the indictment charging attempted burning of a dwelling was not defective; and (6) there was no error warranting relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Doughty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of kidnapping in the first degree and one count of committing violence against an employee of the Department of Corrections, holding that there was no plain error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in failing to conduct a sufficient Faretta hearing to ensure his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and in ordering his sentence to consecutively to his prior sentence, in violation of his plea agreement with the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the circuit court plainly erred in sustaining Defendant's request to represent himself; and (2) the circuit court did not err in ordering Defendant's sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Teter" on Justia Law

Howell received medical screenings from nurses employed by NaphCare, which contracts with the Jail to provide medical services. Nurses noted his sickle cell disease diagnosis. Howell returned to the medical unit after he started a fight. Video shows Howell repeatedly falling in the hallway. Officers placed Howell in a wheelchair. At the medical sallyport, Howell complained loudly of pain and stated that he could not feel his legs. Howell slid out of the wheelchair and was eventually left on the floor. Nurse Jordan reviewed Howell’s medical chart. Medical staff had previously sent Howell to a hospital for sickle cell pain. Jordan concluded Howell was in pain but was experiencing a psychiatric issue. Around 5:40 p.m., officers placed Howell in a restraint chair, transported Howell to the mental health unit, and placed him in a cell with a small window on its door. At 6:06 p.m., Nurse Arthur checked on Howell, who was still yelling. but decided that he did not need further medical treatment. No NaphCare employee checked on Howell again. Officers checked Howell approximately every 20 minutes by looking through the window, seeing only a side profile. Officers falsified log entries and failed to comply with regulations concerning removal, rotating Howell’s limbs, or providing water or the restroom. At 9:45 p.m., Officers went to remove Howell and found him dead. The coroner determined that Howell died from sickle cell crisis.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed as to Nurse Jordan and Deputy Erwin on deliberate indifference claims; a reasonable jury could find that they recklessly failed to act to mitigate an unjustifiably high risk of harm to Howell that a reasonable official would have recognized. Erwin was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Howell v. NaphCare, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, within the particular facts and overall context of this criminal case, the trial court did not violate either the United States Constitution or the North Carolina General Statutes by declining to conduct further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed following his apparent suicide attempt on the morning of the sixth day of trial.Defendant's suicide attempt occurred before the jury was given its instructions but after the jury had heard closing arguments from both sides. To determine whether Defendant had forfeited his right to be present for the trial's ongoing proceedings the trial court received evidence concerning his medical history and state of mind at the time of his apparent suicide attempt. The court ultimately concluded that Defendant's injuries were entirely caused by his own voluntary actions, and therefore, Defendant had voluntarily absented himself from the trial proceedings. The trial was continued in his absence, and the trial court entered judgments against Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not erroneously decline to make further inquiry into Defendant's capacity to proceed during the trial proceedings. View "State v. Flow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the final order and judgment of the trial court in this case involving challenges to N.C. Gen. Stat. 13-1, the statute setting forth the criteria that felons must satisfy to be eligible for re-enfranchisement, holding that the trial court erred in entering an order allowing all felons not in jail or prison to register and vote.Nearly fifty years after the legislature rewrote section 13-1 to make re-enfranchisement automatic for all eligible felons Plaintiffs brought this action challenging the requirement that felons complete their probation, parole, or post-release supervision before they regain their voting rights. Plaintiffs alleged that this requirement was intended to discriminate African Americans. The trial court ruled for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that legislators intended their reforms to section 13-1 to disadvantage African Americans; and (2) Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their other constitutional claims. View "Community Success Initiative v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, selling sexual relations, and two counts of felony theft, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in determining that her incriminating statements made to law enforcement confessing to the murder were made voluntarily. Among other things, Defendant contended that sleep deprivation and drug use tainted her interview and that her confinement in the interview room was coercive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly held that Defendant's statements were freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given and admissible at trial; and (2) ample evidence supported the jury's finding of premeditation. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law

In 1998, Evans was charged with murder. While awaiting trial, Evans asked his cellmate to kill two witnesses. The cellmate secretly recorded those conversations for the authorities. State charges followed for soliciting murder. In 1999 two separate juries convicted Evans of both murder and solicitation. After Illinois courts affirmed both convictions on direct appeal, Evans filed a petition for postconviction relief in state court in 2003. His petition is still pending. In 2019, frustrated with the delay, Evans invoked 28 U.S.C. 2254 and turned to federal court for relief. He claimed that Illinois’s postconviction relief process had proven “ineffective,” allowing him to seek federal habeas relief without waiting further for relief in the Illinois courts.The Seventh Circuit agreed with Evans and vacated the denial of relief. “The delay Evans has experienced of twenty years and counting is beyond the pale and indefensible.” The exhaustion requirement is neither ironclad nor unyielding. A state-law remedy can become ineffective or unavailable by virtue of delay if the delay is both inordinate and attributable to the state. In this case, the “extraordinary delay has stemmed in no small part from the state’s own conduct, both in its capacity as a respondent to the litigation and as the state trial court itself.” View "Evans v. Wills" on Justia Law

White. convicted of four counts of aggravated murder, two counts of attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, one count of aggravated burglary, three counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of having a weapon while under disability, was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, White argued that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney, Armengau, was under indictment in Franklin County, Ohio, for serious criminal offenses and “would have been conflicted over whether to devote time to preparing his own defense or that of his client”; “would have been reluctant to vigorously represent White" for fear of angering the prosecutor; and might have failed to engage in plea-bargaining in White’s case out of a desire to gain a victory over the prosecutor. The Ohio Court of Appeals declined to consider White’s claim because the record lacked necessary facts.In White's federal habeas proceedings, the district court found that Armengau had told White about Armengau’s indictment but White had decided to retain Armengau anyway. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Because White’s claim depends on facts outside the state court record, the Supreme Court’s 2022 "Shinn" decision likely precludes relief. Even considering the new facts introduced in federal habeas court, White’s claim fails. White failed to show that the alleged conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance. White and Armengau’s cases were handled by different judges and were prosecuted by different authorities. View "White v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires sex offenders who study, work, or reside in Indiana to register with the state. Indiana residents who committed sex offenses either before the Indiana General Assembly enacted SORA or before the Assembly amended SORA to cover their specific offense challenged, under the Equal Protection Clause, SORA’s “other-jurisdiction” provision. That provision requires them to register under SORA because they have a duty to register in another jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit previously rejected arguments that SORA violated the constitutional right to travel and the Ex Post Facto Clause and concluded that the district court incorrectly applied strict scrutiny to the equal protection claim, remanding for a determination of whether the other-jurisdiction provision survives rational basis review. On remand, the district court concluded that requiring the registration of pre-SORA sex offenders who have a registration obligation in another jurisdiction is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and granted the plaintiffs summary judgment.The Seventh Circuit reversed. Indiana has a legitimate interest in seeking to register as many sex offenders as the state constitution permits; SORA’s other-jurisdiction provision is rationally related to advancing that interest. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that when an offender is already obligated to register elsewhere, requiring registration in Indiana merely extends that existing duty, which is not punitive and does not offend Indiana’s Ex Post Facto Clause. View "Hope v. Commissioner of Indiana Department of Correction" on Justia Law