Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant, convicted of several felony offenses in state court and sentenced to a maximum term of 27 years, exhausted state court appeals and filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court five days after the one-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. 2254) had run. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim of equitable tolling. Although defendant proceeded pro se after his appellate attorney withdrew and did not turn over documents related to the case, and was limited to one law library visit per week, he was not diligent. His lack of access to the trial transcript and lack of notice of the nearly two-month gap between when he submitted his motion for a delayed appeal to the prison mailroom and when that motion was ultimately filed with the Ohio Supreme Court were "unfortunate" but did not excuse the delays.

Defendant was convicted of intentional murder and of possession of a firearm at the time of the commission of a felony. At sentencing, counsel expressed that defendant, due to long term mental illness, was not responsible for his actions and needed extensive psychiatric treatment. The trial court imposed a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for the murder conviction and a two-year sentence for the firearm conviction. The court noted that a clinical report classified defendant as suffering from schizophrenia paranoid type in remission in an individual who displays passive-aggressive tendencies, mal-depression and non-compliance with medical treatment, but concluded that his mental issues did not rise to the level of useable defense. After exhausting state appeals, defendant petitioned for habeas corpus. The district court dismissed, denying a motion for equitable tolling of the one-year limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the extraordinary circumstances of his mental illness prevented defendant from diligently pursuing his rights.

Petitioner, convicted in Michigan of aiding and abetting a carjacking and of receiving and concealing stolen property, exhausted state appeals and sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal court (28 U.S.C. 2254). The district court denied. On rehearing, en banc, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction and rejecting an argument that trial counsel was ineffective in refusing to call a co-defendant, who had already pled guilty to the actual carjacking, as a witness.

Plaintiff alleges that his former employer and two police officers conspired to bring false charges against him and unlawfully seize him in order to have him sent back to prison on a supervised-release violation by fabricating a police report alleging that plaintiff broke the window of the former employer's car and calling in a false tip that led to search of his car. The charge of violation of supervised release was dropped. The former employer acknowledges that plaintiff did not break the window. The officer was forced to resign and was acquitted of witness and evidence tampering, The district court granted defendants summary judgment in a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. A reasonable jury could find that the officer agreed to stop plaintiff's care without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, although there was no evidence that the officer who executed the traffic stop shared the greater conspiratorial objective.

Petitioner, 16 years old at the time, was charged with first-degree murder and firearm possession during a felony after admitting that he was present at the scene of the 1984 murder. The juvenile court waived jurisdiction, so that defendant was tried as an adult. His counsel did not appeal and he was convicted. Evidence included three witnesses who testified that defendant had told them that he killed the victim. He was sentenced to life in prison, plus two years for the gun charge. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Multiple attempts at collateral relief failed. The district court denied a 2006 petition for habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, that it deemed to be "successive" under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). The Sixth Circuit affirmed after finding that the petition was not successive because it followed a remedial appeal ordered on a prior petition. The credibility determination of the trial judge should not be overturned; given the evidence against him, defendant cannot show prejudice.

In 2001, petitioner was convicted of criminal sexual conduct. Following his arrest, while on bond for that charge, he was arrested for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. He was convicted of that offense as well. Petitioner became eligible for parole in 2008. The Michigan Parole Board used a guidelines scoresheet and assigned a score that gave him a status of "high probability of parole." Nonetheless, after an interview, the Board denied the application, indicating that petitioner required sex offender therapy and had no insight, empathy, or remorse. Petitioner filed a pro se motion, which the court interpreted as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, and dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. After examining the state's parole system, the court concluded that petitioner identified only a basis for his hope of parole, but did not identify a protected liberty interest to which he is entitled under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The 2003 incident started with the mayor calling police to complain about children running through yards. Plaintiff, mother of one of the boys, claims that the officer became angry, blocked her from her house, knocked her down, dragged her to the squad car, shoved her inside, and used pepper spray. She escaped to the house with the children and called 911. When officers arrived, plaintiff refused to open the door until her brother, an attorney, arrived. Plaintiff was handcuffed and placed in the first officer's car, was held for five to six hours, was arraigned on charges of disorderly conduct, assault of a police officer, resisting arrest, and escape in the second degree. Several charges were felonies. She refused to sign an agreement that charges would be dismissed if she promised that she would not pursue a civil suit. She was found not guilty. In her civil suit, a jury awarded $2,400 for physical injury, pain, and suffering, $5,000 for legal expenses, $50,000 for mental pain and suffering, and $1,000,000 in punitive damages (reduced to $229,600 by the judge). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, but modified the punitive damages award to $550,000 so that the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is in the single digits.

In 1994 the then-18-year-old petitioner robbed a liquor store with a 14-year-old accomplice. Both wore masks. The security camera captured petitioner shooting and killing the owner, who did not resist. After a tracking dog led police to petitioner's house, they obtained a warrant and found the murder weapon and cash. Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery and murder. The jury recommended the death penalty. A juror admitted consulting an outside source about the definition of paranoid schizophrenia, but stated that her answer had played no role in his deliberations. The judge imposed the death penalty. Petitioner exhausted state appeals and collateral attack, then filed a federal habeas petition. The district court denied the petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a juror misconduct claim. There is no constitutional imperative to admit cumulative or irrelevant evidence; the court properly excluded evidence of mental illness in petitioner's family. The Ohio Supreme Court's reweighing cured whatever misconduct the prosecutor engaged in at trial. The court also rejected challenges involving exclusion of a juror and jury instructions.

Wife noticed her 72-year-old husband acting strangely and, fearing a stroke, called 911. When paramedics responded, husband refused to cooperate, demanding that they leave and threatening to retrieve a firearm. The paramedics retreated and radioed police for support. Police established a defensive perimeter around the home, called husband and told him to exit the house with his hands in the air, so that the officers could see he was unarmed. Although he acted confused on the first call and did not answer the second, he exited a few minutes later holding a shotgun skyward at a forty-five degree angle, with the barrel in his left hand and the stock in his right. None of the officers spoke to husband or told him to drop the gun. An officer fired a single shot, hitting his back and killing him. Police allege that he paused and leveled his gun in the direction of officers. Wife alleges that stopped and began to turn; as he turned, the gun barrel dropped. The district court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. 1983, but held that there were material issues of fact on whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that there was no legal issue for appeal.

Husband learned of a problem on the school bus involving his 10-year-old daughter. He and his wife went to the bus stop, where they saw police cars and a school bus. They could not see their daughter, but saw their son being held against a police car. They stated that they were the parents and asked where their daughter was. The officer shouted, "Get back." They complied. An officer approached wife, who yelled "donât hit me." Husband told wife to return to their car. Husband claims that the officer grabbed him and began to kick him on his right side and groin. Other officers joined in and sprayed his face with pepper spray. The officers claim that husband and wife were aggressive. Husband was arrested and charged with assault on a police officer, but was found not guilty and filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact and denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit remanded for trial.