Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Alman and Barnes are gay domestic partners. Alman was arrested in Westland, Michigan in 2007, during an undercover police operation in Hix Park, while taking a break from helping his mother move to a nearby apartment building. When officers arrived at the park, they observed Alman sitting on a picnic bench. A decoy officer sat down and struck up a conversation with Alman. The nature of the conversation and subsequent physical contact between the two is disputed. Alman was arrested; the charges were ultimately dropped. The car he was driving, which belonged to Barnes, was towed and impounded. In Alman’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted defendants summary judgment, finding that probable cause existed for the state and municipal offenses charged. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, holding that there was no probable cause supporting any of the charges brought against Alman; that the officer was not shielded by qualified immunity; and that Alman had not stated a claim for malicious prosecution, for failure to train, or for abuse of process. View "Alman v. Reed" on Justia Law

In 2004 Taylor, an employee of the IRS, began applying for promotions and transfers, and was rejected until she received a promotion in 2006. In 2004, after being denied a promotion, Taylor filed her first discrimination complaint and was assigned to work in a unit supervised by Shields. While working in this unit, Taylor alleges that Shields took several retaliatory actions against Taylor, including written reprimands, a three-day suspension without pay, and providing negative references for Taylor to prospective employers. Based on these alleged actions, Taylor filed additional complaints for retaliation. In 2005, the IRS and Taylor entered into a settlement agreement. Taylor subsequently alleged noncompliance by the IRS. In 2006 and 2008, the agency issued decisions concluding that although the IRS had breached the agreement, it was currently in compliance. Taylor did not appeal either decision, but filed a complaint alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a) and breach-of-settlement-agreement. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to the breach claim, holding that Congress has not waived sovereign immunity with respect to such claims, but reversed with respect to retaliation.View "Taylor v. Geithner" on Justia Law

In 1988, Thompson was murdered in Detroit. Bell was found guilty of felony murder and possessing a firearm while committing a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal he argued that counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to interview two alibi witnesses and present them at trial. The conviction was affirmed on the merits by the Michigan Court of Appeals in 1992 and the state supreme court denied review. In 2006 Bell sought habeas corpus. Counsel was appointed and, while investigating, found what was believed to be material, relevant evidence not disclosed by the prosecution, in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The district court granted a stay and Michigan courts denied Bell’s claims on the merits. The district court granted Bell’s petition with regard to Brady and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court did not properly defer to the trial court with respect to the alleged Brady violation and that Bell did not prove that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty. Equitable tolling was not appropriate; Bell’s ineffective-assistance claim remains precluded by AEDPA’s statute of limitations. View "Bell v. Howe" on Justia Law

The Office of the Racing Commissioner regulates the Michigan horse-racing industry. The ORC hires racing stewards as independent contractors to perform regulatory, judging, and enforcement functions in conjunction with three types of horse races. The plaintiffs were appointed as racing stewards in the 1980s and 1990s. Hall currently works as a state steward for the Michigan Gaming Board. Dye was appointed in 1988 and was promoted to Administrative Liaison Steward in 1998, but was demoted to State Steward in 2006 and was terminated in 2009. Perttunen was appointed in 1994, and remains employed as a racing steward for the Gaming Board. Erskine was appointed in 1999, and was terminated in 2009. The four claim that their Democratic supervisors retaliated against them for voicing support for or being perceived as affiliated with the Republican candidate in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Although certain stewards openly endorsed the candidate in the workplace, others remained silent. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court with respect to Dye’s protected-speech, holding that retaliation based on perceived political affiliation is actionable under the political-affiliation retaliation doctrine. View "Dye v. Office of the Racing Comm'n" on Justia Law

In 2008, Dixon, an African-American woman and then-interim Associate Vice President for Human Resources at the University of Toledo, wrote an op-ed column in the Toledo Free Press rebuking comparisons drawn between the civil-rights and gay-rights movements. Shortly thereafter, Dixon was fired. Claiming violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, Dixon filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The speech of a high-level Human Resources official who writes publicly against the very policies that her government employer charges her with creating, promoting, and enforcing is not protected speech. View "Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo" on Justia Law

The affidavit for a warrant for Fields’s arrest for misdemeanor domestic assault noted that arrest would be without bond. Three days later, Fields turned himself in. During booking, Fields requested to post bail. Told that he could not do so until the next day, Fields demanded to speak to a judge. There is no right under Tennessee law to post bail immediately after arrest. The Sheriff incorrectly stated that Fields had to be detained for 12 hours because he was charged with domestic assault. Under Tennessee law, domestic violence defendants must be held for 12 hours only if the official authorized to release the arrestee “finds that the offender is a threat to the alleged victim.” No such finding was made. The county admits that it had a policy of placing a 12-hour hold on all persons arrested for domestic violence regardless of individual circumstances. The next morning, a judge set bail and imposed conditions. Ten months later, prosecutors dropped the charge. Fields sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive bail and his right to procedural due process. The district court granted Henry County for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Fields v. Henry Cnty." on Justia Law

The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, Hickman County, received a referral regarding allegations of abuse concerning the Andrews. A social worker was attempting to make contact when DCS received a second referral concerning the Andrews. Due to references to guns in the home and because the site visit was to be carried out at night, DCSs requested law enforcement to assist. The Sheriff’s Department dispatched two officers. Andrews was outside working when the group arrived and asked the officers to wait outside while he called the sheriff’s office. The Andrews claim that when Mr. Andrews opened the door, he was immediately followed into the house by a “whoosh of presence.” The Andrews claim that they granted permission for interviews of the children because they feared arrest or losing their children. The officers left the house and the Andrews acquiesced to the walk-through. No charges were filed and the assessment was closed as “no services indicated.” The Andrews filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment of qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit reversed as to the social workers, but affirmed with respect to an officer. View "Andrews v. Hickman County" on Justia Law

Moore voluntarily surrendered to Detroit police in connection with a shooting homicide. He asked an officer to call a number on an attorney’s business card. The officer called and reached an answering service and so informed Moore. Moore indicated he wanted to make a statement and signed a waiver of rights. The officer questioned Moore, who made an incriminating statement. There was no clear subsequent request for an attorney. The statement was admitted at trial, over Moore’s objections. Moore was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, being a felon in possession, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life, three to five years, and two years imprisonment, respectively. His conviction was affirmed; Michigan courts denied his post-conviction motion. Moore sought federal habeas corpus. The district court denied his petition. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Michigan court unreasonably found a waiver absent a factual finding, and despite evidence to the contrary, that Moore, not the officer, had reinitiated communications. The trial court effectively required that Moore assert his right to counsel a second time in order to secure it. The error was not harmless. View "Moore v. Bell" on Justia Law

Campbell and Gemperline were attacked on different dates by a canine unit police dog (Spike). They filed suit under 42 U.S.C 1983 against the canine’s handler, the chief of police, and the city, alleging excessive force, failure to supervise, failure to properly train, and state law claims for assault and battery. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Prior to both bite incidents, the handler notified supervisors that he had been unable to keep up with maintenance training and repeatedly requested that they allow him time to attend training sessions, but his requests were denied. Spike’s state certifications lapsed for several months. There was evidence that Spike was involved in biting incidents with growing frequency in the first three years of his deployment in the field. A jury could also reasonably conclude that the handler acted in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner, based on the plaintiffs’ allegations about his conduct and statements at the time of the attacks. View "Campbell v. City of Springboro" on Justia Law

Officer Martin was called to a grocery store following an alleged shoplifting. Martin took possession of a cell phone allegedly dropped by the perpetrator. Based on a conversation with a person listed in the phone’s “contacts” list, he went to Summit Medical Center where Sutton worked. The confrontation between the two resulted in Sutton’s arrest for shoplifting. A jury acquitted Sutton, who subsequently sued Martin and the Nashville and Davidson County Metropolitan Government for federal constitutional violations and state common law and statutory violations. The district court dismissed Sutton’s claims based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments but denied the motion as to Sutton’s Fourth Amendment claim regarding an unreasonable seizure, finding that he had adequately stated a cause of action and that Martin was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Martin is protected by qualified immunity with regard to his initial contact with Sutton and in continuing to detain Sutton after the latter was positively identified by the store’s security guard. Allegations concerning Martin’s conduct between those two events were, however, sufficient to state a claim that precludes qualified immunity at this stage in the litigation View "Sutton v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty." on Justia Law