Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq., alleging that his neighborhood diner violated the ADA by having a wheelchair inaccessible entrance and other barriers that made the diner wheelchair-inaccessible. The court concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge the diner's inaccessible entrance even though he had never attempted to enter the diner; plaintiff alleged that the step deterred him from frequenting the diner; the diner had not indicated an intent to remedy this barrier; and plaintiff's testimony and proximity to the diner created a reasonable inference that he would frequent the diner were the violation remedied. Because plaintiff had standing to pursue injunctive relief as to the diner's entrance, he had standing to seek removal of all barriers inside the diner related to his disability that he would likely encounter were he able to access the diner. The court rejected defendants' claims that the district court incorrectly determined that constructing a permanent ramp was readily achievable where defendants failed to support their assertion. The court rejected defendants' remaining claims and affirmed the district court's grant of injunctive relief to plaintiff, as well as compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. View "Kreisler v. Second Avenue Diner Corp." on Justia Law

Press intervenors appealed the district court's decision denying them access to court proceedings and a sealed internal police document (Report) and continuing to redact parts of hearing transcripts. The court concluded that the district court erred by declining to order release of the full transcript of the contempt hearing, but that given the minimal relevance of portions of the Report that were not testified to at the contempt hearing to the substance of that proceeding, the Report did not become a judicial document to which the First Amendment right applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to the Report, reversed as to the hearing transcript; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Newsday v. County of Nassau" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, representative of the estate of her deceased son, filed suit against the City of New York, police officers, and others, alleging that they were liable for her son's death. A jury found in favor of defendants. The court held that, where a municipality acted in a governmental capacity, a plaintiff could not recover without proving that the municipality owed a "special duty" to the injured party. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a special relationship, and where the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, the analysis ended and liability could not be imputed to the municipality that acted in a governmental capacity. The distinction between nonfeasance and misfeasance was irrelevant to the analysis and the existence of a special relationship was a question of law that could be properly submitted to the jury. In this instance, the court found no error entitling plaintiff to a new trial and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Velez v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against New York state prison officials alleging that they substantially burdened his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1, and that they infringed his due process and First Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. This appeal arose when defendants instigated a disciplinary proceeding against plaintiff, an inmate and a Muslim, after an interaction in which plaintiff gave Chaboty a Quran. The court concluded that plaintiff's RLUIPA claim must fail because RLUIPA did not authorize monetary damages against state officers in their official capacities, and did not create a private right of action against state officers in their individual capacities. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's RLUIPA claim. View "Washington v. Gonyea" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City of New York and police officers, asserting claims of constitutional torts involving arrest without probable cause and malicious prosecution. In regards to the timeliness of plaintiff's suit against the John Doe officers, the court concluded that plaintiff waived the arguments he raised on appeal by failing to raise them in the trial court. The court concluded that plaintiff's claims of municipal liability against the City should not have been dismissed by reason of Officer Symon's entitlement to qualified immunity and the untimeliness of plaintiff's suit against the Doe defendants. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in favor of the City and remanded those claims for further consideration. View "Askins v. City of New York et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after her arrest and detention pursuant to a material witness warrant. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of her motion for reconsideration as to the individual defendants. Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in finding that detaining an individual for two days pursuant to a material witness warrant was a prosecutorial function entitled to absolute immunity. The court agreed and held that defendants were not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity with respect to plaintiff's allegation that she was unlawfully detained for investigative interrogation. In the absence of any discovery by plaintiff, the record was insufficiently developed at this stage. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Simon v. City of New York, et al." on Justia Law

Fahs, a general contractor, filed suit against defendant, a construction supervisor with DOT, alleging First Amendment and Equal Protection claims. On appeal, Fahs challenged the district court dismissal of its claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the First Amendment claim where Fahs's speech was not on a matter of public concern but rather on matters of purely personal significance, and affirmed the dismissal of the Equal Protection claim where the only differential treatment alleged in the complaint took place outside the limitations period. The court considered Fahs's remaining arguments and found them unpersuasive. View "Fahs Construction Group, Inc. v. Gray" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a due-process complaint against the DOE seeking tuition reimbursement after plaintiffs enrolled their autistic child in a private school because the DOE failed to provide the child with a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court affirmed the state review officer's determination that the hearing record did not support the impartial hearing officer's determination that the lack of a functional behavior assessment (FBA) rose to the level of denying the child a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) where the individualized education program (IEP) addressed behavioral needs. Further, the IEP's failure to include parental counseling did not deny the child a FAPE; the SRO did not rely upon impermissible retrospection and the court deferred to her analysis; and the court found plaintiffs' remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "M.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, appealed from the district court's judgment sua sponte dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff sought an Order to Show Cause, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from levying against his SSI benefits to enforce a child support order. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 659(a) authorized levy against SSI benefits provided under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., to satisfy the benefits recipient's child support obligations. The court concluded that SSI benefits were not based upon remuneration for employment within the meaning of section 659(a); section 659(a) did not preclude plaintiff's claims; and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the exception to federal jurisdiction for divorce matters did not preclude the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment to the extent the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the agency defendants and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the portion of the judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against Bank of America because his complaint had not alleged facts establishing that the bank was a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Sykes v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the Animal Rights Front (ARF) and two of its members, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that defendant, a Hartford Police Sergeant, violated their constitutional rights when he arrested two of ARF's members at a children's foot race while they were protesting the treatment of animals by the race sponsor Ringling Brothers. The court concluded that the district court properly entered judgment in favor of defendant on the basis of qualified immunity because there was arguable probable cause that plaintiffs engaged in disorderly conduct with the predominant intent required by Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-182(a)(5). The court remanded for clarification as to whether the district court awarded costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil of Procedure 26(g)(3). Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zalaski v. City of Hartford" on Justia Law