Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, convicted of several drug-related offenses, filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. At issue on appeal was whether the district court violated the rule laid down in Clisby v. Jones, that district courts resolve all claims for relief presented in a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition regardless of whether relief was granted or denied. The court concluded that the district court violated Clisby by failing to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim the magistrate judge overlooked. Despite a party's failure to object to a magistrate judge's conclusions on legal issues, the court's precedent did not foreclose a party's ability to seek de novo review on appeal. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded. The court suggested that it should, in the exercise of its supervisory powers, adopt a new rule that attached consequences to the failure to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. View "Dupree v. Warden, et al." on Justia Law

When Dustin Myers and Kelley Bowman ended their engagement, Dustin attempted to retrieve the diamond ring and other personal property. That attempt prompted allegations that Dustin had stolen Kelley's dog, followed by a police chase on rural roadways, and a brief arrest of Dustin and his father, Rodney Myers. The Myers subsequently field a complaint against Murry Bowman, Kelly's father and the magistrate judge of Jefferson County; Wiley Clark Evans, a deputy sheriff who arrested the Myers; and Charles Hutchins, Evans's supervisor. The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to violate and violated the Myers' rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. 1983. After reviewing the videotape of the police chase and other evidence, the court agreed with the district court that the Myers' effort to make a federal case out of these events failed: Murry and Evans did not subject the Myers to excessive force; Evans had probable cause to arrest the Myers; Murry did not act under color of law; and the Myers failed to present any evidence that Murry, Evans, and Hutchins conspired to commit a false arrest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against the Myers' complaint. View "Myers, et al v. Bowman, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint that her former employer discriminated against her after she became pregnant. At issue was whether direct estoppel barred a claim of pregnancy discrimination under state law when a jury found at trial that plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action regarding her claim of retaliation for exercising her right to maternity leave under federal law. The court concluded that the jury verdict against plaintiff's claim of retaliation estopped plaintiff from relitigating the common issue of whether she suffered an adverse employment action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against plaintiff's claim of pregnancy discrimination. View "DuChateau v. Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint asserting, inter alia, violations of his Constitutional rights, based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and res judicata principles. At issue was the preclusive effect of a prior state court eviction action initiated by the City against plaintiff. The court concluded that the state court proceedings as to the First Amendment issues raised in the second amended counterclaim did not end prior to the commencement of the federal action and therefore, Rooker-Feldman did not divest the court of jurisdiction, regardless of whether the claims raised in state court were identical to those raised in federal courts. Consequently, the court need not address the City's arguments as to whether any of the claims asserted in the federal amended complaint were inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment. The court further concluded that none of the federal causes of action were barred by res judicata under Florida's transaction test; defendants have not specified what issues they believe were identical in the federal amended complaint and in the eviction action, but instead, defendants merely restated their res judicata argument as a collateral estoppel argument; and the Admiralty Action had no preclusive effect of any of the issues raised here. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, FL, et al" on Justia Law

AOF appealed from the district court's order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of Lakeland City. Lakeland filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the city's practice of opening each city commission legislative session with a sectarian prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution. The city maintained, inter alia, that Resolution 4848, adopted a few months after AOF complained in March 2010 about its practices in selecting invocation speakers, did not violate the Establishment Clause or the Florida Constitution. The court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the city and the mayor, in part, because the court concluded that AOF failed to demonstrate that the adoption of Resolution 4848 resulted in proselytizing or advancing the Christian religion over all others solely because the speakers who were selected included sectarian references in their prayers. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to decide AOF's challenge to the city commission's pre-March 2010 speaker selection practice as violative of the Establishment Clause and the Florida Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Atheists of Florida, Inc., et al v. City of Lakeland, Florida, et al" on Justia Law

The State appealed from the district court's order enjoining it from requiring plaintiff to submit to a suspicionless drug test pursuant to Section 414.0652 of the Florida Statutes, as a condition for receipt of government-provided monetary assistance for which he was otherwise qualified. Plaintiff applied for financial assistance benefits for himself and his son through Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction enjoining the State from enforcing the statute because the court concluded that the State had failed to establish a substantial special need to support its mandatory suspicionless drug testing of TANF recipients. View "Lebron v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Children and Families" on Justia Law

Starship, a purveyor of various novelty items including sexually explicit materials, appealed the judgment of the district court dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6) its federal constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants and refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over its state constitutional claims. Starship's claims stemmed from the County's decision to uphold the Business Director's denial of its application for a business license to operate a retail bookstore. The court found no error in the district court's dismissal of Starship's 1983 claims because they were barred by res judicata and the district court's decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Starship's state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Starship Enterprises of Atlanta v. Coweta County, GA, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued a police officer for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer shot plaintiff seven times while plaintiff was in his car. The officer and the city police department subsequently appealed the district court's denial of the officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The court concluded that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where no reasonable police officer would have used deadly force against plaintiff and where clearly established law gave the officer fair notice that his actions violated the Fourth Amendment. Further, state agent immunity did not apply to the assault and battery claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morton v. Kirkwood" on Justia Law

Four police officers appealed the district court's denial of their motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 unlawful search claim. Plaintiff alleged that the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they conducted a warrantless entry into her home and searched it. The court concluded that the officers lacked even arguable probable cause or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into plaintiff's apartment without a warrant or her consent. Therefore, the court agreed with the district court's ultimate conclusion that the officers were not entitled to summary judgment, though not for the same reasons articulated by the district court. View "Feliciano v. Acosta, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that his former employer discriminated against him on account of his age when it terminated his employment, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq. The employer argued that the reason for plaintiff's discharge was due to a reduction in force (RIF), not his age, 71-years-old. After thorough review of the record with benefit of oral argument, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer, concluding that no reasonable fact finder could find that the employer's decision was "but-for" his age and plaintiff had not established that the project manager acted as a mere cat's paw for the assistant project manager's discriminatory animus. View "Sims, Jr. v. MVM, Inc." on Justia Law