Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Jack William Morgan, a Messianic Jew, purchased a turkey log from the commissary at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Thomson in May 2021, which led to the suspension of his kosher diet approval for thirty days by the institutional chaplain. Morgan claimed this forced him to choose between starvation and violating his religious beliefs, and he chose starvation. After exhausting administrative remedies, he sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the prison warden, Andrew Ciolli, seeking changes to dietary policies and monetary damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Morgan has since been transferred to a different BOP facility.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Morgan’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court found that Morgan did not provide sufficient factual allegations to show that the BOP’s dietary policies substantially burdened his religious exercise. Additionally, the court noted that the BOP is immune from suits for damages under RFRA and that Morgan’s complaint did not include allegations about Ciolli’s conduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and focused on two threshold issues: subject-matter jurisdiction and sovereign immunity. The court determined that Morgan did not adequately allege standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief, as his threat of future injury was too speculative. Furthermore, the court held that federal sovereign immunity barred Morgan’s claim for monetary damages, as RFRA does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity against damages suits. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal but modified the judgment to reflect a jurisdictional dismissal. View "Morgan v BOP" on Justia Law

In the early morning of November 1, 2019, a group of law enforcement officers, including Task Force Officer (TFO) Clarence Belton and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer Heather Loveridge, attempted to execute a search warrant at the house of a suspect, Larry McConneyhead, in Charlotte, North Carolina. During the operation, McConneyhead fled into his house, and a confrontation ensued. TFO Belton was accidentally shot by Officer Loveridge, who mistook him for the suspect. Belton suffered severe injuries, leading to multiple surgeries and permanent disability.The case was initially filed in North Carolina state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Belton alleged excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and several state law claims against Officer Loveridge and the City of Charlotte. Officer Loveridge moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity for the federal claim and public officers’ immunity for the state claims. The district court denied her motion, citing genuine disputes of material fact regarding the circumstances of the shooting.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court failed to conduct the proper analysis for determining qualified immunity, which requires identifying the specific constitutional right violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to apply the correct legal standards for qualified immunity and public officers’ immunity. View "Belton v. Loveridge" on Justia Law

The complainant, John Ward, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) alleging that the City of Stamford discriminated against him based on his veteran status and disability. The CHRO found reasonable cause and certified the complaint to the Office of Public Hearings (OPH). During the public hearing, Ward moved to amend his complaint to include a claim for denial of reasonable accommodations. The human rights referee granted the motion over the city's objection.The city filed an interlocutory administrative appeal with the Superior Court, arguing that the CHRO lacked jurisdiction to hear the amended complaint without a reasonable cause finding. The CHRO and Ward moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that interlocutory rulings are not appealable under General Statutes § 46a-94a (a) and that the statutory requirements for an interlocutory appeal under § 4-183 (b) were not met. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the referee's ruling was a final decision under § 4-183 (a).The Supreme Court of Connecticut reviewed the case and concluded that the referee's ruling was not a final decision under § 4-183 (a) because it did not terminate any aspect of the case or determine any rights or obligations. The court also determined that § 46a-94a (a) allows for interlocutory appeals under § 4-183 (b), but the city's appeal did not meet the criteria for such an appeal because postponement would not result in an inadequate remedy. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with direction to grant the motions to dismiss the city's appeal. View "Stamford v. Commission on Human Rights& Opportunities" on Justia Law

Michael Chapman, an Alabama inmate, sued prison officials and staff for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Chapman alleged that an untreated ear infection led to severe injuries, including mastoiditis, a ruptured eardrum, and a brain abscess. He also claimed that the prison's refusal to perform cataract surgery on his right eye constituted deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants except the prison’s medical contractor, which had filed for bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found Chapman’s claim against nurse Charlie Waugh time-barred and ruled against Chapman on other claims, including his request for injunctive relief against Commissioner John Hamm, citing sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that Chapman’s claims against other defendants failed on the merits and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s determination that Chapman’s claim against Waugh was time-barred, finding that Chapman’s cause of action accrued within the limitations period. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for Waugh and remanded for reconsideration in light of the recent en banc decision in Wade, which clarified the standard for deliberate indifference claims. The court also vacated the judgment for Hamm on Chapman’s cataract-related claim for injunctive relief, as sovereign immunity does not bar such claims. Additionally, the court vacated the summary judgment for all other defendants due to procedural errors, including inadequate notice and time for Chapman to respond, and remanded for further consideration. View "Chapman v. Dunn" on Justia Law

A man on probation was subject to a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) requiring him to give a day's notice to security personnel before visiting the medical center where his former girlfriend worked. The woman alleged that the man violated this notice provision multiple times over three years, causing her severe emotional distress and job loss. The probation officer investigated the alleged violations but decided not to revoke the man's probation or penalize him.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, granted summary judgment for the State, finding no genuine issues of material fact, that the probation officer fulfilled her duty of reasonable care, and that her actions were shielded by discretionary function immunity. The woman appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment for the State regarding whether the probation officer fulfilled her operational duty to investigate the alleged violations. The court further concluded that the probation officer's subsequent decisions were shielded from suit by discretionary function immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's grant of summary judgment. View "Smith v. Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Several unemployed workers in Alabama applied for unemployment benefits and claimed that the Alabama Department of Labor unlawfully delayed processing their claims. They sued the Alabama Secretary of Labor in state court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, arguing that the delays violated their due process and federal statutory rights. They sought a court order to expedite the processing of their claims. The Secretary moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claimants had not satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirement under Alabama law. The state trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.The claimants appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed the dismissal on the grounds of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded that §1983 did not preempt the state's administrative-exhaustion requirement, effectively preventing the claimants from suing to expedite the administrative process until they had completed it.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that state courts may not deny §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when the application of a state exhaustion requirement effectively immunizes state officials from such claims. The Court reasoned that Alabama's exhaustion requirement, as applied, prevented claimants from challenging delays in the administrative process, thus immunizing state officials from §1983 suits. The Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. Reed" on Justia Law

NYP Holdings, Inc. and a New York Post reporter submitted 144 Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to the New York Police Department (NYPD) for disciplinary records related to specific police officers. The NYPD denied the requests for all but one officer, leading the Post to commence an article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure. The Police Benevolent Association (PBA) intervened, arguing that records created before the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a were not subject to disclosure under FOIL.The Supreme Court granted the Post's petition, rejecting the NYPD's claim that compliance would be too burdensome and refusing to consider the PBA's retroactivity argument. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the repeal of section 50-a applied retroactively to records created before the repeal. The court emphasized that the repeal was remedial legislation intended to increase public trust and accountability in law enforcement.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on whether law enforcement disciplinary records created while section 50-a was in effect could be disclosed in response to FOIL requests submitted after the repeal. The court concluded that the Legislature intended for the repeal to have retroactive effect, noting that FOIL's presumption of disclosure applies to all records held by an agency, regardless of when they were created. The court also highlighted the legislative intent to enhance public trust and accountability following the repeal of section 50-a.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, holding that the repeal of section 50-a applies retroactively, allowing the disclosure of law enforcement disciplinary records created before the repeal. View "Matter of NYP Holdings, Inc. v New York City Police Dept." on Justia Law

In 2020, the New York legislature repealed Civil Rights Law § 50-a, which had exempted law enforcement disciplinary records from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) subsequently requested records of all civilian complaints against Rochester police officers from the City of Rochester and the Rochester Police Department, regardless of whether the complaints were substantiated. When the respondents did not promptly produce the documents, NYCLU initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel disclosure.The Supreme Court ordered the production of many records but allowed the respondents to withhold records related to unsubstantiated complaints under the personal privacy exemption in Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b). The Appellate Division modified this decision, ruling that the personal privacy exemption did not permit categorical withholding of all such records. Instead, the respondents were directed to review each record individually to determine if there was a specific justification for redaction or withholding based on personal privacy grounds.The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court held that FOIL's personal privacy exemption does not allow for a blanket exemption of all records related to unsubstantiated complaints against law enforcement officers. Each record must be evaluated individually to determine if disclosing it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. If redactions can prevent such an invasion, the agency must disclose the record with the necessary redactions. The court emphasized that the 2020 amendments to FOIL aimed to increase transparency in the law enforcement disciplinary process, and categorical exemptions would undermine this objective. View "Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v City of Rochester" on Justia Law

A transgender woman, Darlene Griffith, filed a civil rights lawsuit regarding her pretrial confinement at the El Paso County Jail in Colorado. She alleged that the jail's policies, which assigned housing based on genitalia and denied her access to female clothing and products, violated her constitutional rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed her complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), leading to this appeal.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed Ms. Griffith’s complaint, concluding that she failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The court applied rational-basis review to her Equal Protection claim, finding that transgender individuals are not a protected class under existing precedent. The court also dismissed her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as she did not properly name the county as a defendant according to state law requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that remand was required for some of Ms. Griffith’s claims. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on her Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim against Sheriff Elder in his official capacity, her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment cross-gender search claims against Sheriff Elder in his official capacity, and her Fourth Amendment abusive search claim against Deputy Mustapick. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing Ms. Griffith’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims under Rule 12(b)(6) because those claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and that ruling was unchallenged on appeal. The court otherwise affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the remaining claims. View "Griffith v. El Paso County, Colorado" on Justia Law

An assistant public defender resigned unexpectedly, leading the Public Defender Agency to propose a temporary reassignment plan for her cases until a permanent replacement could be hired. The superior court rejected this plan, as it did not assign specific attorneys to the cases. The court ordered the Agency to inform affected clients that they would need to waive their rights to effective assistance of counsel until a permanent attorney was assigned, or the Agency would withdraw. The Agency managed to assign specific attorneys to all but one case, from which it withdrew as ordered. The court then appointed the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) to represent that client. OPA moved to withdraw, arguing that its appointment was unauthorized under AS 44.21.410 and that the superior court exceeded its authority. The superior court denied the motion, leading OPA to file an original application for relief with the court of appeals, which certified the application to the Alaska Supreme Court.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the superior court did not err by intervening in the affected cases. The court determined that the Agency's lack of capacity to provide effective representation constituted a conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct and the state and federal constitutions. The court concluded that when the Agency has a conflict due to lack of capacity, AS 44.21.410(a)(4) requires that OPA be assigned to represent the affected clients. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's order appointing OPA to represent the client, explaining that the superior court had a duty to ensure the client's right to effective assistance of counsel and that a lack of capacity can amount to a conflict of interest requiring OPA's appointment. View "Office of Public Advocacy v. Superior Court, First Judicial District" on Justia Law