Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a prisoner serving a New York State sentence, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with necessary medical treatment during his incarceration at a correctional facility and by punishing him for his efforts to secure such treatment. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the sanction of dismissal with prejudice, nor did it err in its underlying finding that plaintiff acted in bad faith such that no other sanction would suffice. The court clarified that the offending conduct for which the sanction was imposed was not plaintiff's accusations that the Magistrate Judge was biased against him, but rather his offensive, abusive, and insulting language. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Koehl v. Bernstein" on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Local Law 17. Local Law 17, inter alia, requires pregnancy services centers to make certain disclosures regarding the services that the centers provide. The court concluded that the law was not impermissibly vague; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to one of the challenged disclosures, which requires pregnancy services centers to disclose if they have a licensed medical provider on staff; plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to other provisions challenged by plaintiffs that require other forms of disclosure and impermissibly compel speech; and because the provisions are severable, the court severed the enjoined provisions from the rest of Local Law 17. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "The Evergreen Association, Inc v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging, inter alia, unlawful discrimination and hostile work environment. The court concluded, inter alia, that the jury was precluded from finding that plaintiff had not actually engaged in the conduct charged against him in the section 75 of the New York State Civil Service Law hearing. Inasmuch as the district court did not expressly instruct the jury that its fact-findings were cabined in this regard, the jury charge was in error. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court with respect to the state law claims and its award of backpay to plaintiff; affirmed the judgment as to plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the ECWA and the concomitant award of punitive damages against the ECWA; reversed the judgment imposing liability against the individual defendants on plaintiff's section 1983 claims against them, and therefore also reversed the judgment insofar as it awarded punitive damages against the individual defendants; and affirmed the district court's attorney's fee award. View "Matusick v. Erie Cnty Water Auth., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a prison inmate, filed suit alleging that three masked correction officers (COs) sprayed him while he was in his cell with an unknown substance, apparently a mixture of fecal matter, vinegar, and machine oil. The COs were retaliating against plaintiff for reporting several prior assaults. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The court was unwilling to accept, as a matter of law, the proposition that spraying an inmate with a mixture of feces, vinegar, and machine oil constituted a de minimis use of force. Even assuming arguendo that the physical force allegedly used was de minimis, spraying an inmate with the mixture was undoubtedly "repugnant to the conscience of mankind" and therefore violated the Eighth Amendment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that the complaint plausibly alleged violations of his constitutional rights and that the applicable statute of limitations did not preclude plaintiff from amending his complaint to name certain John Doe defendants. View "Hogan v. Fischer" on Justia Law

John Doe appealed from a contempt order and an order compelling him to comply with a grand jury subpoena for financial records that the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 C.F.R. 1010.420, required him to maintain. The district court held that requiring Doe to produce the subpoenaed documents, over his objections, did not violate his right against self incrimination pursuant to the "required records" doctrine. The court concluded that the required records exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination still exists. The Act's requirement at issue here are "essentially regulatory," the subpoenaed records are "customarily kept," and the records have "public aspects" sufficient to render the exception applicable. Because Doe could not lawfully excuse his failure to comply with the subpoena, the district court was within its discretion to impose sanctions for his non-compliance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena dated February 2, 2012" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, Andalex, alleging claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under federal and state law, as well as claims that Andalex failed to notify her of her right to continuing health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), 29 U.S.C. 1166 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Andalex and dismissed her claims. The court affirmed the district court's judgment except with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claims. Based on the discrepancies between the EEOC statement and subsequent testimony, a reasonable juror could infer that the explanation given by Andalex was pretextual, and that, coupled with the temporal proximity between the complaint and the termination, the complaint at issue was a but-for cause of defendant's termination. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to require denial of the summary judgment motion on the retaliation claims. View "Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the NYPD on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment challenge to NYPD Interim Order 52 (IO-52). IO-52 requires the administration of a breathalyzer test to any officer whose discharge of his firearm within New York City resulted in death or injury to any person. The court concluded that the immediate objectives of IO-52 testing were personnel management of, and public confidence in, the NYPD; the identified objectives qualified as "special needs" for purposes of Fourth Amendment reasonableness review because they were distinct from normal law enforcement concerns and incompatible with the warrant and probable cause requirements for law enforcement searches; and the special needs greatly outweighed officers' reduced expectation of privacy with respect to alcohol testing at the time of any firearms discharge causing death or personal injury, thereby rendering warrantless, suspicionless IO-52 testing constitutionally reasonable as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's award of summary judgment to the NYPD on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment challenge to IO-52. View "Lynch v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, acting as administratrix of her daughter's estate, filed a complaint against the County and others, seeking damages for the daughter's death. The parties subsequently negotiated a settlement. In this separate action, plaintiff and her attorney alleged that the County intentionally delayed approving the settlement in retaliation for their protected First Amendment activities. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint because plaintiffs had no right to have the settlement approved at all, much less by a certain date. View "Dorsett v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her three children, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging that the removal of the children from plaintiff's home without a court order violated their rights to due process of law and to freedom from unreasonable seizures. The court held that the state official who takes a child into custody without parental consent or court order was entitled to qualified immunity if there was an objectively reasonable basis to believe that there was an imminent threat of harm to the child. Based upon the evidence in the record - including the history of domestic violence between plaintiff and the children's father, the violation of the protective order, and the Superior Court's finding that the children were in immediate physical danger - defendants' decision to take the children into state custody was objectively reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants based upon qualified immunity. View "Doe v. Whelan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, visual artists who sell their works on sidewalks and in public parks, filed suit against the City challenging the 2010 revisions to vending regulations. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the vending regulations were valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions subject to intermediate scrutiny where the City's interests - alleviating congestion and improving circulation, promoting the aesthetics of the parks, and ensuring that the parks were available to the public for a wide range of activities - were significant, and the regulations were narrowly tailored. The court also affirmed the district court's issue of a protective order in response to plaintiffs' request to depose Mayor Bloomberg and former Deputy Mayor Skyler. View "Lederman v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law