Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Before the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the Secret Service announced that access to certain areas would be restricted. Graber, a paramedic, joined political protests outside the Restricted Area. Protestors breached the gated perimeter. The Philadelphia Police Department apprehended those within the Restricted Area. Graber was one of seven individuals taken into custody; the police did not prepare any arrest paperwork for Graber. Special Agent Boresky was charged with serving as an affiant for a criminal complaint against the arrestees. Another agent e-mailed Boresky a synopsis of the events and photographs. Boresky appeared before a Magistrate and signed an affidavit identifying Graber as having been arrested inside the Restricted Area, based upon his “personal knowledge,” “information developed during the course of this investigation,” and information 'imparted by other officers. Boresky was not present at the arrest, did not view any video evidence, and did not write the affidavit. Graber was detained overnight. Graber’s counsel provided news video clips confirming that Graber never passed through the fence. The charges against Graber were dismissed.Citing “Bivens,” in which the Supreme Court held that a cause of action existed against federal agents who violated the Fourth Amendment, Graber sued Boresky for false arrest, unlawful detention, and false charges. Denying a motion to dismiss, the district court held that a Bivens claim could be brought against Boresky. The court later dismissed Boresky’s qualified immunity summary judgment motion. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the Bivens ruling is not a final decision and is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine. View "Graber v. Boresky" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to a charge of lewd or lascivious conduct and was sentenced to five years of sexual offender probation. The terms of that probation provided that he “qualified and shall register with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as a sexual offender pursuant to Section 943.0435.” Petitioner—proceeding pro se—sought federal habeas corpus relief from his conviction pursuant to Section 2254. The state moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because he was not “in custody” under Section 2254(a). The state argued that Petitioner was not in its physical custody at the time he filed his petition. Petitioner responded that his lifetime sex offender registration, “along with all the other restrictions that come with being a registered sex offender,” significantly restrained his individual liberty such that he was “in custody” for purposes of Section 2254(a). The district court dismissed Petitioner’s Section  2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court found that Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for sex offenders do not render those offenders “in custody” within the meaning of Section 2254(a). The court reasoned that the proper inquiry here is under Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) and its progeny. First, he is not at the beck and call of state officials. Second, Petitioner is not required to live in a certain community or home and does not need permission to hold a job or drive a car. Third, Petitioner has to provide in-person advance notice of trips outside the state and outside the country, but the trips themselves do not require permission or approval by state officials. View "Louis Matthew Clements v. State of Florida, et al." on Justia Law

In 1985, two people were shot to death in rural Garrard County. Haight, who had escaped from jail days earlier, was captured in a nearby cornfield. During a chase, police discovered the victims’ possessions and both handguns used to commit the murders in a stolen truck abandoned by Haight. Haight pled guilty in exchange for the prosecutor’s recommendation of a life sentence without parole for 25 years. The court accepted Haight’s plea but sentenced him to death. The Kentucky Supreme Court vacated. Haight unsuccessfully sought specific enforcement of the plea agreement, was allowed to withdraw his plea, and went to trial. Haight admitted to the murders from the witness stand, claiming that he was suffering from “extreme emotional disturbance” and intoxication. The jury found him guilty of two counts each of intentional murder and first-degree robbery, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Haight’s convictions and death sentence were affirmed. Haight was denied postconviction relief without discovery or an evidentiary hearing.In 2002, Haight sought habeas relief. The district court stayed the federal action. The Kentucky Court of Appeals and Kentucky Supreme Court refused to consider his unexhausted issues. Haight successfully moved to have the now-exhausted issues included in his amended 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition, which raised 45 grounds. Haight’s motion and application for the appointment of experts and his motion for discovery and an evidentiary hearing were denied.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance; upholding the refusals to permit the defense to have Haight examined by a neuropsychologist before sentencing and to appoint medical experts; rejecting challenges to jury instructions and to the exclusion of certain potential jurors; and rejecting arguments concerning the refusal to enforce the plea agreement. Kentucky’s death penalty statute is not facially unconstitutional. View "Haight v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Helphenstine was arrested for drug offenses on April 14 and taken to jail. Around 8:30 p.m. on Sunday, April 16, Helphenstine vomited and was moved to a “detox” cell. A local doctor was contractually obligated to visit the jail once a week. He came on Tuesday nights. Helphenstine’s condition deteriorated. Knowing that the office was closed, deputies faxed the doctor a non-emergency medical request, stating Helphenstine was vomiting and soiling himself, refusing to eat or drink, and had not gotten out of bed for 24 hours. The doctor testified he called the jail and directed that Helphenstine be taken to a hospital but was told that Helphenstine refused. There is no record of these calls. The doctor faxed prescriptions for antiemetics; although it was a Tuesday and although he knew of Helphenstine’s condition, he did not visit the jail. Around midnight, Helphenstine laid on his mat, where he remained. Around 3:30 a.m., Helphenstine was unresponsive; jailers began CPR and called 911. Helphenstine was pronounced dead en route to the hospital.Plaintiff’s experts testified that Helphenstine died either from withdrawal or from severe dehydration caused by withdrawal. Helphenstine’s death certificate lists his cause of death as “acute (fentanyl) and chronic drug abuse,” with the interval between onset and death listed as 6 minutes; fentanyl was present in Helphenstine’s blood. The district court rejected a deliberate indifference claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. A jury could conclude that Helphenstine’s death was the result of deliberate indifference by the county and the doctor; the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Helphenstine v. Lewis County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court entering judgment upon a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of rape and sentencing him to life in prison, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the State intentionally circumvented his right to confront vital witnesses by improperly allowing into evidence a surreptitious recording made by Defendant's roommate and that the recording contained inadmissible hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the rape conviction; and (2) the circuit court did not err in admitting the recording into evidence. View "Wallace v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction of one count each of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree and two counts of criminal contempt, holding that the trial judge committed constitutional error by ordering Defendant handcuffed without placing the special need for such restraints on the record and that the error was not harmless.The trial judge ordered Defendant to be handcuffed when the jury returned to announce its verdict. The judge, however, did not provide an on-the-record, individualized explanation for the restraints. The appellate division affirmed, concluding that any error in Defendant's being handcuffed without any explanation on the record was harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) until the jury returns to the courtroom, publicly announces the verdict and confirms the verdict, the defendant is still presumed innocent and the constitutional prohibition on restraining a defendant without explanation remains in force; and (2) the constitutional error in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a new trial. View "People v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the conclusion of the district court that the more than three-year delay between Defendant's arrest and his subsequent criminal trial did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial, holding that Defendant did not receive his guaranteed right to a speedy trial.Defendant was charged with assault with a weapon. After facing a lengthy wait to be evaluated for his mental fitness to stand trial Defendant received a bed at the Montana State Hospital (MSH), where his fitness for trial improved. Defendant's fitness, however, decompensated after he was sent back to jail, leading to a second admission to MSH before the case finally went to trial. A jury found Defendant guilty, and the district court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 1,179-day delay between Defendant's arrest and trial, due to systemic institutional problems, violated Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Allery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's second petition for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree felony murder and attempted first-degree premeditated murder, among other crimes. Defendant later filed the postconviction petition at issue, asserting that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a trial before an impartial jury and that his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court summarily denied the petition as time barred and procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Defendant's second postconviction petition as untimely. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of one count of first-degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexual assault in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for less than ten nor more than fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial by partially closing the courtroom in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to a public trial, and Defendant waived his right to a public trial; (2) Defendant waived any appellate argument regarding the admissibility of certain evidence; and (3) Defendant failed to prove that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged errors. View "Tarpey v. State" on Justia Law

Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) Officers found Smallwood unresponsive in his prison cell. When he awoke, Smallwood assured a nurse that he had not taken any drugs, and reminded her that he is diabetic. Smallwood consented to a urinalysis and the results were negative. Dr. Talbot nonetheless ordered blood tests. Smallwood asked for a form to refuse the blood draw. Prison guards stated that he could not refuse, twisted his hands and wrists, placed him in a headlock, and held a taser to his chest while placing him in restraints. They held him down while a lab technician drew his blood. The blood test results revealed no illegal drugs. Smallwood alleges that the officers took him to an observation cell where they subjected him to physical and sexual abuse, then placed him in segregation. Smallwood filed a grievance but did not properly follow IDOC grievance procedures, which require that a prisoner first attempt to informally resolve the problem: a grievant need not seek informal resolution for allegations of sexual abuse. Smallwood filed a timely formal grievance, alleging sexual abuse. Smallwood’s grievance was rejected for failing to show that he had tried to informally resolve his complaint. Smallwood expressed an inability to understand the grievance process. A year later, Smallwood's attempt at informal resolution was rejected as untimely.Smallwood sued, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding unresolved, material factual questions regarding Smallwood’s ability to make use of the grievance procedure. View "Smallwood v. Williams" on Justia Law