Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Detective Genaro Hernandez, a Dallas Police Department detective, was involved in a shooting investigation outside The Green Elephant bar in August 2019. Hernandez, who also worked for the Stainback Organization, allegedly pursued false charges against the bar's owner, Shannon McKinnon, and a security guard, Guadalupe Frias, to benefit his private employer. Despite the Special Investigation Unit finding no criminal offense by the plaintiffs, Hernandez bypassed standard procedures and directly sought prosecution from the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, leading to the plaintiffs' indictment for tampering with evidence. The charges were later dropped when Hernandez's conflict of interest was revealed during Frias's trial.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Hernandez, alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and state-law claims for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and civil conspiracy. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the federal malicious-prosecution claim but allowed the federal false-arrest claim and the state-law claims to proceed. Hernandez appealed, arguing he was entitled to governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Hernandez's actions, despite being motivated by personal interests, fell within the scope of his employment as a detective. The court held that Texas law provides broad immunity to state actors for actions within their employment scope, regardless of intent. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision denying dismissal of the state-law claims and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining federal claim. View "Frias v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

In 2020, allegations emerged that certain officers in the Vallejo Police Department were bending the points of their badges after using potentially lethal force. The department hired an independent investigator to look into these claims but did not release the investigation's findings. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) requested records related to the investigation under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The department released some records but withheld the investigative report, claiming it was a confidential personnel record.The ACLU filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Solano County Superior Court, challenging the department's response. The court ordered the disclosure of parts of the investigative report and related materials, with redactions to protect the identities of officers, witnesses, and their families. Both parties sought writ review of this decision.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the documents sought by the ACLU were not confidential personnel records but were subject to public disclosure under section 832.7, subdivision (b) of the Penal Code. This section pertains to records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of incidents involving the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer. The court also found that the redaction of officer names could not be sustained on the grounds relied upon by the superior court. However, due to the extensive volume of potentially disclosable materials and minimal briefing on redaction issues, the court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding redactions. View "City of Vallejo v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

Eugene Sikora, a former prisoner, claims that the State of Iowa failed to release him from prison when his sentence was over. He was convicted of three felonies in 2016 and sentenced to concurrent five-year terms, which were suspended for probation. In 2017, his probation was revoked, and he was imprisoned until March 2019. Sikora alleges that due to a miscalculation, he was imprisoned for nearly five months longer than allowed, as the defendants did not credit him for 292 days served in county jails and a custodial residential center.Sikora filed a suit over three years after his release, seeking money damages for wrongful imprisonment. He named the State of Iowa and the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections as defendants, asserting five tort claims, including violations of his constitutional rights and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing sovereign immunity and other defenses. The district court dismissed some of Sikora’s claims but allowed others to proceed. However, after the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Burnett v. Smith, which overruled the precedent allowing constitutional tort claims, the district court dismissed Sikora’s remaining claims and denied his motion to amend his petition to add new defendants and claims.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that sovereign immunity barred Sikora’s claims. The court concluded that all of Sikora’s claims were essentially false imprisonment claims, which are barred by sovereign immunity under Iowa Code section 669.14(4). The court also rejected Sikora’s arguments that constitutional torts and claims against individual state employees could proceed, emphasizing that the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA) provides the exclusive mechanism for such claims and explicitly prohibits claims based on false imprisonment. View "Sikora v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees and various Auburn University employees (defendants) who were sued by Patti Northcutt and her husband, Walter Northcutt (plaintiffs). Patti, a former employee and doctoral student at Auburn, alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for previous lawsuits and grievances she had filed, which were settled through agreements. She claimed that the defendants breached these settlement agreements and interfered with her ability to complete her doctoral program and obtain employment at Auburn.The plaintiffs initially filed their complaint in the Lee Circuit Court, which they amended multiple times. The third amended complaint included claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, equal protection, and procedural due process violations, as well as state-law claims for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved to dismiss these claims, asserting federal qualified immunity and State immunity under the Alabama Constitution.The Lee Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss the First Amendment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims but denied the motion regarding the other claims. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to dismiss the remaining claims.The Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition in part, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities under § 1983 for equal protection and procedural due process violations, based on federal qualified immunity. The Court also directed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to state-law claims for prospective injunctive relief, based on State immunity. However, the Court denied the petition regarding the plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees related to federal-law claims for prospective injunctive relief and the state-law claims for monetary damages against the employee defendants in their individual capacities. View "Ex parte B.T. Roberts" on Justia Law

Faya Rose Toure sued the City of Selma, Chief of Police Spencer Collier, and police officer Devon McGuire following her arrest for fourth-degree theft of property and attempting to elude. Toure claimed McGuire and Collier committed assault and battery, false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, invasion of privacy, negligence, wantonness, abuse of legal process, unreasonable seizure, and defamation/libel. She also accused the City of negligent hiring, training, and supervision, and fostering a custom of police abuse. Toure sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages.The defendants filed for summary judgment, citing peace-officer and State-agent immunity. They provided evidence including deposition testimonies, incident reports, and body camera footage showing McGuire witnessed Toure removing a campaign sign and subsequently attempting to elude him. Toure argued she removed the sign believing it was illegally placed and felt intimidated by McGuire, who was in an unmarked vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City but denied it for McGuire and Collier.The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case. It found that McGuire and Collier were performing discretionary functions within their law enforcement duties, entitling them to immunity. The court determined that McGuire had at least arguable probable cause for Toure's arrest, and Toure failed to provide substantial evidence that McGuire or Collier acted willfully, maliciously, or beyond their authority. Consequently, the court held that McGuire and Collier were entitled to peace-officer and State-agent immunity and directed the trial court to enter summary judgment in their favor. The petition for a writ of mandamus was granted, and the writ was issued. View "Ex parte McGuire" on Justia Law

In 2018, South Carolina excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, citing state law prohibiting public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood and patient Julie Edwards sued, claiming the exclusion violated the Medicaid any-qualified-provider provision, which allows Medicaid beneficiaries to obtain services from any qualified provider. Edwards preferred Planned Parenthood for gynecological care but needed Medicaid coverage. They filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to enforce rights under the federal Medicaid statutes.The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and enjoined the exclusion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded the case in light of Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski, which addressed whether another spending-power statute created §1983-enforceable rights. On remand, the Fourth Circuit reaffirmed its decision.The Supreme Court of the United States held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under §1983. The Court emphasized that spending-power statutes rarely create enforceable rights and that the any-qualified-provider provision lacks the clear rights-creating language necessary to support a §1983 action. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic" on Justia Law

Matthew Mungai, a Black man of Kenyan origin, sued the University of Minnesota, alleging racial discrimination and harassment while he was a student. He claimed violations under Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), the Fourteenth Amendment, and negligence. Mungai detailed several incidents of racial harassment by students and staff over three years, including derogatory comments and threats. He reported some incidents to university staff and the Student Conflict Resolution Center (SCRC).The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Mungai's claims, finding that his amended complaint failed to state a claim. Mungai appealed, focusing on his Title VI claim and challenging the dismissal with prejudice of his Title VI, MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court adopted the deliberate indifference standard for third-party harassment claims under Title VI, similar to Title IX. To establish liability, Mungai needed to show that the University was deliberately indifferent to known acts of harassment by individuals under its control. The court found that Mungai's allegations did not plausibly show that he reported the incidents to an appropriate person with authority to take corrective action. Additionally, the court found that Mungai did not provide sufficient facts to establish that the University acted with deliberate indifference.The court also upheld the district court's dismissal with prejudice of Mungai's MHRA, Fourteenth Amendment, and § 1983 claims. The MHRA claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Fourteenth Amendment claim could not be brought directly, and the University was not a "person" under § 1983.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Mungai v. University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the ward map adopted by the Jersey City Ward Commission following the 2020 federal census. The Commission found a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards, which exceeded the maximum allowed by the Municipal Ward Law (MWL). The Commission created a new map with a 1.8% deviation and revised the boundaries of all six wards. Plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, argued that the new map failed to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement and violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution. They also claimed a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).The trial court concluded that the Commission’s map created sufficiently compact wards under the MWL and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the MWL claims, remanding for factfinding on whether the Commission’s determination of compactness had a rational basis. It affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the MWL, equal protection, and NJCRA claims. The Court held that the Commission’s map was a proper exercise of its discretion under the MWL. It found that the Commission was not required to use mathematical measures of compactness or consider communities of interest in its determination. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s remand for additional factfinding, reinstating the trial court’s judgment on the MWL claim. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims, concluding that the Commission’s compliance with the MWL negated the equal protection claim and that no statutory or constitutional violation occurred to support the NJCRA claim. View "Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission" on Justia Law

Steve Eggleston sued Clark County and Georgina Stuart, a social worker, alleging violations of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Eggleston claimed that Stuart coerced him into signing temporary guardianship papers for his children during an ongoing child abuse/neglect investigation by threatening that his children would be permanently removed from his care if he did not comply. Stuart and Clark County moved for summary judgment, arguing that their actions were protected by qualified immunity and discretionary-act immunity. The district court denied their motion.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada denied the motion for summary judgment, leading Stuart and Clark County to file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Stuart's conduct violated clearly established law and whether her actions were protected by discretionary-act immunity.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and granted the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Stuart was entitled to qualified immunity on Eggleston's substantive and procedural due process claims because her conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. The court also held that Stuart was entitled to discretionary-act immunity on Eggleston's IIED claim, as her actions involved individual judgment and were based on considerations of social policy. The court directed the district court to vacate the order denying summary judgment and to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of Stuart and Clark County. View "Clark County v. District Court" on Justia Law

A shelter providing housing to individuals experiencing homelessness terminated a client's services on an emergency basis, alleging that the client posed an imminent threat to the health or safety of others. The client, who had previously been removed from the shelter without proper notice, returned to the shelter and was involved in a confrontation with security officers. The shelter claimed the client was hostile, pushed a security officer, and made threats. The client challenged the termination, leading to an evidentiary hearing.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reviewed the case. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found that the shelter had previously attempted to terminate the client without proper notice and that the client was within his rights to be at the shelter at the time of the incident. The ALJ determined that the security officers escalated the situation by provoking the client, who only pushed the officer after being provoked. The ALJ did not credit the shelter's witness's testimony that the client made threats, finding it uncorroborated and inconsistent with video evidence.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. The court upheld the ALJ's decision, agreeing that the ALJ correctly applied the law and that the client's actions were not severe enough to warrant emergency termination under the Homeless Services Reform Act. The court found that the ALJ's credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence and that the shelter's arguments regarding the client's prior misconduct were unpreserved for appeal. The court affirmed the OAH's order, rejecting the shelter's arguments. View "Catholic Charities--801 East Men's Shelter v. Byrd" on Justia Law