Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that certain statements made on air by a radio talk show host about a political figure could not serve as a basis for a defamation action given each statement's content, the overall context, and the protections afforded to core political speech by the First Amendment.Respondent Daniel McCarthy, a "Republican political hopeful," sued James Harris, a radio host on a local station owned by iHeartMedia, Inc. (collectively, Petitioners), alleging that statements made by Harris on his radio show were defamatory. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the statements were rhetorical hyperbole incapable of being proved false and thus protected by the First Amendment. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that none of the statements at issue were actionable because none of them could be reasonably interpreted as asserting or implying false statements of fact that defamed McCarthy. View "Harris v. Honorable Warner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was struck by a truck driver on Interstate 20. A jury found the truck driver liable for the accident and, although Plaintiff cited millions of dollars in damages, the jury awarded him just $37,500. Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for a new trial or remittitur on the basis of an alleged Batson violation and improper comments made by defense counsel during the closing argument.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, explaining that the “jury verdicts on damages may be overturned only upon a clear showing of excessiveness or upon a showing that they were influenced by passion or prejudice.” Here, defense counsel’s repeated comments implying Plaintiff’s counsel was trying to obtain as large a damages award as possible may have been improper, but they do not warrant a new trial.Additionally, the court rejected Plaintiff’s Batson claim, finding that defense counsel had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for striking the jurors based on their belief that truck drivers should be held to a higher standard of care. View "Heckman v. Gonzalez-Caballero" on Justia Law

Moss Gropen brought suit against, among other defendants, Cyrus Shabrang and Michael Noud (together, Real Parties in Interest) arising out of Gropen’s treatment at a hospital. Gropen appeared at the noticed deposition with his wife Laura Gropen. Defense counsel objected to Laura’s presence at the deposition because she was a percipient witness in the action and could be deposed in the future. Gropen’s deposition did not proceed beyond the parties stating their objections on the record. Real Parties in Interest subsequently filed a motion for protective order and sanctions, asking the court to exclude Laura from Gropen’s deposition. At the hearing on the motion, for the first time, Gropen’s counsel explicitly requested under California Rules of Court, rule 1.100, that accommodations be provided to Gropen because he was suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), a recognized disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The court acknowledged that PTSD fell under the ADA but found Gropen’s request for an accommodation untimely. It thus granted the protective order and sanctioned Gropen. Gropen petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing that the superior court abused its discretion in granting the protective order and erred by not considering the evidence that Gropen was diagnosed with PTSD. Gropen also maintained that his request that Laura attend his deposition was a reasonable accommodation. The Court of Appeal concluded Gropen’s request for accommodation was timely, the district court abused its discretion by failing to remand the matter to the superior court with instructions to deny the motion for a protective order and sanctions, and to properly consider Gropen’s request under Rule 1.100. View "Gropen v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

A trusted prison inmate was working unsupervised in a hog barn when the ceiling collapsed, striking him in the head. He told the prison agricultural specialist that he needed medical attention. But the specialist thought the inmate looked no worse for wear and ordered him back to work. A short while later, the inmate asked another prison staffer for medical attention. The staffer radioed a supervisor. Based on the staffer’s report, the supervisor, too, thought nothing serious had happened and did not immediately grant the inmate’s request. The inmate’s condition later worsened. He was sent to the hospital and diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that prison staff violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference towards him. Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, Plaintiff alleged premises-liability claims. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants based on qualified immunity.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiff failed to raise a factual dispute over whether the prison officials acted with deliberate indifference. But even if he had, he’d still need to show that his rights were “clearly established at the time of the violation.” The court explained that involves showing that “the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.” It just isn’t enough to identify a right as “a broad general proposition.” The district court did not address qualified immunity’s second step. Further, the court agreed with Defendants that even assuming a violation, the law was not clearly established under this standard. View "Rogers v. Jarrett" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a now-retired Special Agent with the United States Secret Service, filed a civil suit against two United States Park Police officers (“officers”) under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff asserted that the officers violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully seizing him during two traffic stops. A jury found the officers liable for Plaintiff’s emotional injuries resulting from the constitutional violations and awarded him a total of $205,000 in compensatory damages and $525,000 in punitive damages. The district court entered final judgment in accordance with the jury verdict and later denied the officers’ post-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Plaintiff presented a cognizable Bivens claim because his claim is not meaningfully different from the claim asserted in Bivens. Both cases involved allegations of unjustified, warrantless seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment committed by federal “line” officers conducting routine police work. Also, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. They violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by significantly prolonging the initial stop without justification and by initiating a second, unjustified stop. This constitutional right to be free from such unlawful seizures was clearly established at the time the seizures occurred. Further, the court held that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of emotional injury to support the compensatory damage award, and the punitive damages award was not excessive. View "Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Advance Auto Parts, claiming unlawful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Advance Auto’s motion for summary judgment.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that here, unlike Green v. Dillard’s Inc., there is no genuine dispute whether Advance Auto acted negligently or recklessly under Section 213. As for Section 213(a), Plaintiff does not allege that Advance Auto made improper orders or regulations. It had a written policy prohibiting discrimination based on any protected status; all employees had to read and familiarize themselves with this policy and complete annual training. The court further explained that Advance Auto is not liable under Section 1981 for discrimination based on its employee’s conduct. Plaintiff’s claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress fail under respondeat superior and ratification. View "Nicolas Tashman v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by recommending and imposing certain special conditions of post-release supervision that he contends is unconstitutional. The district court declined to grant Defendants summary judgment.   At issue in this appeal is whether a corrections professional who recommended that the Parole Board issue certain special conditions of release is absolutely or qualifiedly immune from claims challenging the constitutionality of those conditions and seeking monetary or injunctive relief.  The Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court concluded that the Commissioner’s is absolutely immune from Plaintiff’s claims for damages because her challenged acts were quasi-judicial. The court did not address the Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator’s claim of absolute immunity but concluded that she is qualifiedly immune from Plaintiff’s damage claims because the challenged conditions were not clearly unlawful at the time she recommended them.   The court reasoned that to the extent Plaintiff is challenging the delegation of broad authority to the parole officer, the court noted that parole officers are statutorily authorized to impose special conditions. Plaintiff has not cited any law narrowing this authority. In sum, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the parole officer’s recommendation of these case-specific conditions violated his clearly established rights. View "Peoples v. Leon, et al." on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for false arrest, false imprisonment, and violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), holding that the district court incorrectly determined that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) deprived it of jurisdiction.In his complaint, Plaintiff argued that, for the purpose of his repatriation to Cambodia, he was improperly arrested and detained by federal immigration officers. At issue was whether section 1252(g)'s bar on judicial review of claims "arising from" the government's decision to "execute removal orders" precludes jurisdiction over challenges to the legality of the detention at issue in this case. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit reversed, holding that section 1252(g) did not bar judicial review of Plaintiff's challenge to the lawfulness of his detention. View "Kong v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Elsa Palacios, personal representative of the estate of the deceased, Bernardo Palacios Carbajal, filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants-Appellees Salt Lake City Police Officers Neil Iversen and Kevin Fortuna in their individual capacities, as well as Salt Lake City Corporation. Plaintiff alleged the officers violated Palacios’ Fourth Amendment rights when he was fatally shot during a police pursuit. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in favor of Defendants, finding a lack of a constitutional violation and that Plaintiff failed to show a violation of clearly established law. On appeal, Plaintiff contended that disputes about material and historical facts precluded summary judgment. According to Plaintiff, the district court erred by not making reasonable factual inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, primarily that: (1) Palacios may have been unaware he was being pursued by police because officers did not verbally identify themselves, because he was severely intoxicated, and he did not match the full description of the robbery suspect; (2) once Palacios fell onto his side during the shooting and did not point his gun at officers, he was effectively subdued; and (3) Palacios’ conduct showed he was attempting to avoid confrontation, not evade arrest. Plaintiff also contended that officers exaggerated the seriousness of the offenses that precipitated the pursuit and that officers should have used less intrusive means of apprehension because Palacios did not pose an imminent threat. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's case. View "Palacios v. Fortuna, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of the Estate of former federal inmate brought suit against the United States and several Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) officials after the decedent was allegedly beaten to death by fellow inmates. The Estate (“Appellant”) alleges that BOP officials violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect the decedent from the attack and failing to intervene to prevent his transfer to a “violent” facility. Appellant also sued the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging that prison officials had been negligent in their failure to intervene and protect the decedent. Appellant argues that its Eighth Amendment claims are cognizable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and its progeny.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the Appellant’s Bivens claims arise in a new context and that several special factors, including separation-of-power implications and an increased burden on the federal prison system, counsel against an extension of Bivens in this new context. The court also concluded that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applies to BOP officials’ decisions to transfer Bulger and place him in general population. View "William Bulger v. Hugh Hurwitz" on Justia Law