Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In March 2020, Andrew Cooperrider, owner of Brewed, a coffee shop and bar in Lexington, Kentucky, criticized Governor Beshear’s COVID-19 policies on social media. In November 2020, the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) suspended Brewed’s alcohol license, and officially revoked it in March 2022. Cooperrider filed a lawsuit against Governor Beshear, DABC officials, and other state officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation and due-process violations, claiming the license revocation was in retaliation for his critical speech.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the case, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that most of Cooperrider’s claims were barred by absolute, qualified, and sovereign immunity. It also determined that Cooperrider’s remaining substantive-due-process claim did not meet the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of most claims, agreeing that the defendants were protected by absolute, qualified, and sovereign immunity. However, the appellate court found that the district court improperly granted qualified immunity to Governor Beshear, Ray Perry, and Wesley Duke regarding Cooperrider’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The appellate court held that Cooperrider had plausibly alleged that the enforcement action against Brewed was motivated by his protected speech. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s decision on this point and remanded the case for further proceedings on the First Amendment retaliation claim. View "Cooperrider v. Woods" on Justia Law

A personal care assistant (PCA) in a Medicaid program was investigated for submitting inaccurate records of services provided. The investigation substantiated the allegations, and a committee within the overseeing agency decided to terminate her from the program. The PCA was notified and informed of her right to appeal. An administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended adopting the committee’s determination, which the agency did. The PCA appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the agency’s decision. The PCA then appealed, raising several issues.The superior court found the PCA’s Open Meetings Act claim untimely and concluded that the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) did not apply because the sanction procedures were interpretations of existing regulations. It also determined that the PCA had no property interest in future reimbursements from the program and that her liberty interest in her reputation was not implicated. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings and the termination sanction.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case. It concluded that the PCA’s Open Meetings Act claim was untimely and that the APA did not require the Department to promulgate new regulations for the sanctions committee. The court also found that the PCA had a protected liberty interest in her reputation but determined that she received due process through the hearing before the ALJ. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Department’s findings and that the sanctions imposed were reasonable. The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding the agency’s termination of the PCA. View "Thomason v. State" on Justia Law

Rhonda Fleming, an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee (FCIT), filed a pro se lawsuit against Warden Erica Strong and the United States, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to her exposure to mold, asbestos, and COVID-19, which she claimed caused severe health issues. Fleming sought injunctive relief and damages under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). She alleged that despite her complaints, the prison officials, including Warden Strong, failed to address the hazardous conditions, leading to her contracting COVID-19 twice and requiring hospitalization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of Fleming's claims, including all claims against Strong, citing that Bivens did not provide a remedy for her Eighth Amendment claim. However, the district court disagreed, finding that Fleming's Eighth Amendment claim was similar to a previously recognized Bivens claim and allowed it to proceed. The district court did not address the issue of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order recognizing a Bivens cause of action. The Eleventh Circuit joined four other circuits in holding that the collateral-order doctrine does not extend to Bivens-extension orders that do not address qualified immunity. The court emphasized that qualified immunity adequately protects government officials from the burdens of litigation and that separation-of-powers concerns with Bivens extensions do not justify immediate appeal. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fleming v. FCI Tallahassee Warden" on Justia Law

Antonio Fuster went to the Chatham Township Police Department to report that his special needs child had accused an adult male relative of sexual misconduct. His interview with police was recorded on a body worn camera. Fuster and his wife, Brianna Devine, sought access to that video under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and the common law right of access. They alleged inaccuracies in the initial police report and wanted the video to potentially file an internal affairs complaint.The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, holding that the body worn camera footage was a government record under OPRA but exempt from disclosure under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-9(b), which protects the confidentiality of information regarding individuals not arrested or charged. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the video was exempt from disclosure under judicial case law protecting uncharged individuals' law enforcement records.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case. The Court held that N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5(k) did not permit plaintiffs to review the video because Fuster had already requested the video be retained for three years, and Devine was not entitled to review it under the specified provisions. The Court also held that subsection (l) of the Body Worn Camera Law did not abrogate OPRA’s exemptions, but there was no OPRA exemption supporting the refusal to release the video. The Court found that OPRA does not contain an explicit exemption for information received by law enforcement regarding an individual who was not arrested or charged, and New Jersey case law had not established such an automatic grant of confidentiality.The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and ordered the release of the body worn camera footage to the plaintiffs, without reaching the common law claims. View "Fuster v. Township of Chatham" on Justia Law

Justin and Jared Brackett own and operate two restaurants in Harwich, Massachusetts: Ember Pizza, Inc. and The Port Restaurant and Bar, Inc. Both establishments held liquor and entertainment licenses issued by the town. Allegedly, they violated Harwich's noise ordinance and Massachusetts COVID-19 restrictions, leading to suspensions and restrictions on their permits. In response, they sued Harwich, several town officials, and other individuals in federal district court, asserting various federal and state claims.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts largely granted the defendants' dispositive motions, rejecting all of Ember and The Port's claims. The court also denied their request for leave to amend their complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile. Ember and The Port then appealed the district court's decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's rulings. The appellate court held that Ember and The Port failed to state a plausible claim for relief under federal law, including their First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and procedural due process claims. The court also found that the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act claims and common law claims, including civil conspiracy and defamation, were inadequately pleaded. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for leave to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have cured the deficiencies in the original complaint. View "3137, LLC v. Town of Harwich" on Justia Law

Jennifer Harmon’s son, N.J., died by suicide while residing at the Bruce Normile Juvenile Justice Center (BNJJC) under the care of the Second Judicial Circuit of Missouri. Harmon filed a lawsuit seeking damages for her son’s death, including various 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state wrongful death claims against the Second Circuit, several named defendants from both the Second Circuit and BNJJC, Preferred Family Healthcare (PFH), and several named defendants from PFH. All defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the Second Circuit and Government Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the claims against the Second Circuit were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the § 1983 claims against the Government Defendants were barred by qualified immunity, and the state tort claims against the Government Defendants were barred by official immunity. Harmon appealed these immunity judgments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Harmon’s claims against the Second Circuit, holding that the Second Circuit is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983 and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, which Missouri has not waived. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Harmon’s § 1983 claims against the Government Defendants, concluding that the Government Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Harmon failed to show that any constitutional violation was clearly established. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of Harmon’s state tort claims against the Government Defendants, holding that the Government Defendants were entitled to official immunity under Missouri law because Harmon failed to plead both the existence of a department-mandated policy and a breach of that policy. View "Harmon v. Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri" on Justia Law

Karen Ashley, the former Chief Nursing Officer of Clay County Memorial Hospital (CCMH), raised concerns about patient safety issues, including missing fentanyl and procedural errors in blood transfusions. She reported these issues internally and publicly at a CCMH Board meeting. Ashley also advocated for CCMH to terminate its contract with Concord Medical Group PLLC and partner with ACPHealth. Following this advocacy, Ashley alleges that the County, CCMH, and the Foundation retaliated against her by terminating her employment, violating her First Amendment rights.Ashley filed suit against the County and Concord Medical Group, alleging retaliation under the Texas Occupations Code and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The County moved to dismiss, asserting it was not Ashley’s employer and had taken no adverse actions against her. Ashley amended her complaint to add CCMH as a defendant and narrowed her claims against the County. The County maintained it was not Ashley’s employer and moved to dismiss on governmental immunity grounds. CCMH invoked an arbitration clause in Ashley’s employment agreement and moved to compel arbitration. The district court compelled the County to arbitration alongside CCMH and denied the County’s motion to dismiss as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred by not addressing the County’s governmental immunity defense before compelling arbitration. The appellate court reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to resolve the issue of governmental immunity as it pertains to the County’s motion to dismiss before ruling on the motion to compel arbitration. View "Ashley v. Clay County" on Justia Law

Robert Mann, a taxpayer, filed a lawsuit against the State of California and the California Highway Patrol (CHP), challenging CHP’s vehicle impound policies. Mann argued that the impoundment of vehicles without a warrant and inadequate notice procedures constituted illegal expenditures of public funds. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what he characterized as wasteful, unlawful, and unconstitutional law enforcement policies. The trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring CHP to consider vehicle owners’ ability to pay towing and storage fees during impound hearings and vehicle release procedures, and to revise its notice form to advise owners of procedures for retrieving impounded vehicles.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially reviewed the case. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, the trial court granted a motion for judgment against Youth Justice Coalition and entered judgment in favor of defendant Warren A. Stanley, who had retired before the trial. The court found that Stanley, as a former public officer, was no longer a proper defendant. The trial court issued a permanent injunction requiring CHP to revise its vehicle impound procedures, including considering the ability to pay and revising notice forms.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the injunction improperly required CHP to contravene valid statutes, relied on inapplicable case law, conflicted with the existing statutory scheme, and mandated unnecessary revisions to its notice procedures. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in requiring CHP to conduct ability-to-pay hearings and revise its notice forms, as these requirements were not mandated by due process and conflicted with statutory provisions. The judgment was reversed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the appellant. View "Mann v. State of Cal." on Justia Law

The case involves Lori Ann Wiley, who, along with Charles Wallace Hanson, engaged in a verbal altercation at a Kern High School District (KHSD) high school. The incident began when a school employee blocked a handicap parking spot they intended to use. Wiley later submitted a written complaint about the incident to the school. Subsequently, KHSD police officer Michael Whiting recommended various misdemeanor charges against Wiley, leading to her being cited and a prosecutor filing a criminal complaint with three misdemeanor charges. After a mistrial, the court dismissed Wiley’s charges in the interest of justice.Wiley sued KHSD police officers Edward Komin, Michael Whiting, Luis Peña, and Steven Alvidrez, alleging violations of her First Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. She brought causes of action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the Bane Act, and common law torts for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to Wiley’s causes of action in the second amended complaint on multiple grounds without leave to amend and granted a motion to strike Wiley’s punitive damages allegations without leave to amend.The California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and reversed it in part. The appellate court held that Wiley failed to adequately plead her claims under section 1983 for malicious/retaliatory prosecution and abuse of process, as well as her claims under the Bane Act. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Wiley did not sufficiently allege facts to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. However, the court granted Wiley leave to amend her section 1983 claim but denied leave to amend her other causes of action. The court affirmed the trial court’s order granting the motion to strike without leave to amend. View "Wiley v. Kern High School District" on Justia Law

A man named Johnathon Lerke, who was under a Murphy conservatorship, challenged his confinement in a county jail while awaiting transfer to a state hospital. Murphy conservatorships are for individuals found incompetent to stand trial and deemed a danger to others. Despite being ordered to a state hospital, Lerke was held in county jail for months due to a lack of space at the hospital. He argued that his confinement in jail was unauthorized and violated his rights.The Superior Court initially found Lerke incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to a state hospital for competency restoration. After nearly two years, the hospital reported that Lerke had not regained competence. Subsequently, a Murphy conservatorship was established, requiring his placement in a state hospital. However, due to the unavailability of space, he remained in county jail. Lerke's counsel requested his release or transfer to a local psychiatric hospital, but the court denied the request, stating that he would remain in jail until a state hospital bed became available.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that no legal authority permitted Lerke’s indefinite detention in county jail pending his transfer to the state hospital. The statutory framework requires conservatees to be placed in treatment facilities that promote their treatment and protect the public, and county jails do not meet these requirements. Although the court found Lerke’s confinement in jail unlawful, it denied habeas relief because he had already been transferred to an authorized treatment facility during the proceedings. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied as moot. View "In re Lerke" on Justia Law