Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Tony Fisher, a federal inmate, filed a lawsuit against several prison officials, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to the risk of sexual assault by another inmate, resulting in his rape. Fisher entered federal prison in 2013 and was transferred to Fort Dix, where he reported past sexual assault and harassment by other inmates. Despite these reports, prison staff did not classify him as at high risk for sexual assault. Shortly after, Fisher was raped by another inmate. Fisher claimed that a prison official, Captain Fitzgerald, discouraged him from reporting the assaults and seeking legal help, warning him of potential retaliation.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed Fisher’s complaint, ruling it was time-barred under New Jersey’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Fisher appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the prison official’s threats and his mental health issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The court held that no Bivens cause of action exists for failure to protect an inmate from another inmate’s violence, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule. The court also ruled that even if such a claim were cognizable, Fisher’s complaint was untimely. The court found that Fisher did not qualify for equitable tolling because he was transferred away from the influence of the threatening official shortly after the assaults and did not exercise due diligence in pursuing his claims. Additionally, the court held that New Jersey’s revival statute for sexual assault claims did not apply to Bivens actions. View "Fisher v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

Two high school brothers, Kameron and Noah Evans, were arrested for disorderly conduct after wearing tactical vests to school. The brothers, who had faced racial bullying, wore the vests on a day when the school was screening an active-shooter video. They were searched by school resource officers, who found no weapons. The principal decided to have them arrested, and they were charged with disorderly conduct. The state court later acquitted them, and the brothers filed a lawsuit under § 1983 and state tort claims against the officers, alleging lack of probable cause and excessive force.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denied the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The officers appealed, arguing they had probable cause or at least arguable probable cause to arrest the brothers for disorderly conduct under Arkansas law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the officers lacked probable cause to arrest the brothers, as their actions did not disrupt a lawful assembly or constitute threatening behavior. The court also determined that the officers did not have arguable probable cause, as the brothers were cooperative and their attire did not violate the school dress code. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment claims. However, the court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force and abuse of process claims, as the plaintiffs failed to respond to these arguments on appeal. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Evans v. Dodd" 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

A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputy entered the curtilage of Harson Chong’s home without a warrant, leading to the discovery of drugs, guns, and money. Chong and Tac Tran, who was present at the home, were subsequently charged with federal drug and gun offenses. They claimed ineffective assistance of counsel because their attorneys did not object to the search on Fourth Amendment grounds.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially denied their suppression motions, ruling the search justified by the parole-search exception. However, after the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Grandberry, the district court reversed, finding insufficient probable cause that Tran resided at Chong’s home. Despite this, the court upheld the search based on exigent circumstances. Chong and Tran were convicted, and their convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. They then filed post-conviction motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which the district court denied, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the deputy’s entry onto the curtilage without a warrant, consent, or exigency was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court found Chong’s counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress the evidence, as the search was clearly unlawful. However, Tran lacked standing to challenge the search, as he did not reside at Chong’s home and was merely a visitor. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s denial of Chong’s § 2255 motion and remanded for relief, but affirmed the denial of Tran’s motion. View "Chong v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2015, Eddie Williams was prosecuted in Pennsylvania for crimes related to a drug dispute that resulted in one death and one serious injury. Williams, along with Rick Cannon and Akeita Harden, was implicated in the incident. Cannon pleaded guilty to twenty charges, including homicide and conspiracy, some of which named Williams as a coconspirator. During Williams's trial, his attorney misrepresented Cannon's plea, leading the judge to read Cannon's entire Criminal Information to the jury, which included references to Williams as a coconspirator.Williams was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment plus additional years. He filed a Post-Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) petition, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's actions. The PCRA court denied relief, finding no Confrontation Clause violation and concluding that the attorney's strategy was reasonable. The Superior Court affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied further appeal.Williams then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which granted relief, finding that the reading of Cannon's Criminal Information violated the Confrontation Clause and that Williams's counsel was ineffective for not objecting. The Commonwealth appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the reading of Cannon's Criminal Information, which included references to Williams, was testimonial and violated the Confrontation Clause. The court also found that Williams's counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the reading, which prejudiced Williams's defense. The court concluded that these errors had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict, warranting habeas relief. View "Williams v. Greene" 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

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

Charles Clements was convicted by a California state jury of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, three counts of second-degree robbery, and related enhancements. His convictions were based in part on the testimony of a jailhouse informant, Donald Boeker, who claimed Clements had solicited him to murder a key witness. Boeker testified that he received no benefits for his cooperation and that his motives were altruistic. However, it was later revealed that Boeker did receive parole consideration for his testimony, which the prosecution knew or should have known.Clements appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition, which was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The district court had denied his claims, including one under Napue v. Illinois, which asserts that the prosecution knowingly used false testimony. The district court reviewed the Napue claim de novo but ultimately denied it, finding no reasonable likelihood that Boeker’s false testimony affected the jury’s judgment.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Clements’s Napue claim, holding that the prosecution violated Napue by allowing Boeker to falsely testify about not receiving any benefits for his cooperation. The court found that Boeker’s testimony was highly probative of Clements’s consciousness of guilt and identity on the aggravated kidnapping counts. The court concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case with instructions to grant Clements’s habeas petition with respect to the aggravated kidnapping charges. The court did not address Clements’s Brady claim or his request for an evidentiary hearing, as the relief sought was already granted under the Napue claim. The court also affirmed the denial of Clements’s Massiah and prosecutorial misconduct claims, finding that the state court’s determinations were not objectively unreasonable. View "Clements v. Madden" on Justia Law

In 2021, Ellva Slaughter was charged with illegally possessing a firearm while knowing he had previously been convicted of a felony, violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Slaughter moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the jury selection plan of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) systematically underrepresented Black and Hispanic or Latino people, violating his Sixth Amendment right and the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (JSSA). The district court assumed the underrepresentation was significant but denied the motion, finding Slaughter failed to prove systematic exclusion in the jury selection process.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Slaughter's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court assumed without deciding that there was significant underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latino people but concluded that Slaughter did not establish that this underrepresentation was due to systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide evidence that the identified practices caused the disparities and noted that many of the challenged practices were authorized by the Second Circuit. The court also found that any disparities were due to external factors outside the SDNY's control.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court applied the framework from Duren v. Missouri, assuming without deciding that the underrepresentation was significant. However, it concluded that Slaughter did not meet his burden of proving systematic exclusion. The court found that Slaughter's expert did not provide sufficient evidence that the SDNY's practices caused the underrepresentation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Slaughter failed to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement under the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA. View "United States v. Slaughter" on Justia Law

In May 2020, following the death of George Floyd, several individuals participated in or were near protests in downtown Houston. They allege that they were falsely arrested by City of Houston police officers who used "kettle maneuvers" to confine and arrest protesters. The plaintiffs claim that then-Chief of Police Art Acevedo implemented a policy of "kettling" and arresting protesters. They sued the City and Acevedo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, based on the assertion that there was no probable cause for their arrests under section 42.03 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibits obstructing passageways.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs under section 42.03 and dismissed the claims against both the City and Acevedo. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two previous panels had addressed similar issues with conflicting outcomes. In Utley v. City of Houston, the panel found probable cause for arrest and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit. Conversely, in Herrera v. Acevedo, the panel found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged false arrest and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The current panel agreed with the Utley decision, holding that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing a passageway under section 42.03. The court found that the size and location of the protests provided sufficient probable cause for the arrests, thus negating any First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment violations. Consequently, the claims against the City and Acevedo were dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wade v. City of Houston" on Justia Law