Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Freeze was hired by the Decherd Police Department. He became Chief of Police in 2007. Colvin, Freeze’s brother-in-law, was hired as a patrolman in 2007. The Board of Aldermen is responsible for hiring and firing. During a February 2009 meeting, the Aldermen told Freeze that they “might need to just let [him] resign as the Chief and put [him] in as a sergeant at $15 an hour.” Freeze stated that “if it’s going to keep my job, yes, I will take a demotion.” After several confrontations during a March meeting, the Board terminated the employment of Colvin and Freeze. The city did not provide notice that terminations would be considered at the meeting, but claims that it provided oral notice that “general job performance may be discussed.” Neither officer was allowed to present witnesses or evidence. The separation notice regarding Freeze reads: “No reason given.” The city’s 1999 Personnel Resolution designates every city worker as an at-will employee with no property right in employment, but a 2000 Police Resolution states that “discipline shall be for cause and shall follow the basic concepts of due process.” The district court dismissed, finding that the officers possessed no property interest in continued employment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, based on the unequivocal language of the Police Resolution. View "Freeze v. City of Decherd" on Justia Law

An investigation of the Mansfield, Ohio, drug trade involved the Richland County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO) using a confidential informant it had used once before (Bray) to make controlled buys. In 2005, the U.S. DEA joined the Investigation. Bray was registered as a DEA informant. All targets of the Mansfield controlled buys were selected either by Bray or RCSO. The controlled buys resulted in numerous arrests and indictments. The case agent who testified before the grand jury identified multiple corroborative measures generally used to substantiate Bray’s information and to supervise controlled purchases, including: criminal history and driver’s license checks; searches of Bray’s person and vehicle prior to and after a controlled purchase; tape-recorded phone calls to the suspects; copies of serial numbers of buy money; audio and visual surveillance; and, in certain cases, undercover participation by agents. Corruption pervaded the Investigation. Bray, in jail for an unrelated homicide, disclosed that he had framed innocent individuals, stolen money and drugs, and dealt drugs on side. There was evidence that, as to some arrestees, law enforcement knew of, and participated in, Bray’s misdeeds. The investigation fell apart. Bray pled guilty to perjury and deprivation of civil rights. Agents were also indicted. The district court rejected claims by the Investigation’s targets under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and “Bivens,” citing qualified immunity; held that judicial estoppel barred false arrest claims; and held that because the named individuals had not committed constitutional violations, plaintiffs could not prevail on their Monell claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Spires v. Lucas" on Justia Law

A video recording taken from Ohio Trooper Kline’s cruiser shows Kinlan's Nissan move into a narrow space between cars in the left lane of the four-lane street. Kline followed for about 30 seconds until its driver signaled a turn. Kline activated his lights and siren and pulled the Nissan over. Kline approached and informed Kinlin that he had nearly cut off the car behind him and had “cut left of center” before the intersection. Kline asked how much alcohol Kinlin had consumed. Kinlin answered: “two beers.” Kinlin exited the car and appeared disheveled, but not off-balance. Kline ushered Kinlin out of camera range for a field sobriety test. Kinlin said: “I’m not doing a test…. I’m not drunk.” Kline informed Kinlin that he was under arrest. Kinlin replied: “You’re kidding.” Kline said: “One more chance … take my test?” Kinlin again refused. Kline responded that he could smell alcohol and that Kinlin’s eyes were glassy. While Kline was patting him down, Kinlin agreed to submit to a test. The test, administered later, indicated a blood-alcohol content of .012%, below Ohio’s limit of .08%. Kinlin sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court found that Kline had probable cause to stop Kinlin and probable cause for arrest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Kinlin v. Kline" on Justia Law

After losing her job as an appraiser for St. Joseph County, Trayling filed a grievance with her union and a discrimination charge with the Michigan Civil Rights Department. The union refused to pursue the grievance because the collective bargaining agreement’s election-of-remedies clause prohibits use of the internal grievance process and an external process simultaneously. Trayling sued the county for age and disability discrimination, and sued the union and the county for implementing an allegedly unlawful election-of-remedies rule. The district court held that the election-of-remedies rule violated federal law. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s order granting partial summary judgment did not amount to a final decision; it did not even fully resolve the election-of-remedies claim (damages remain undecided), much less the whole case. An exception to the finality requirement, 28 U.S.C. 1292(a), does not apply because the order did not involve an injunction. View "Trayling v. St. Joseph Cnty. Emp'rs Chapter" on Justia Law

Sjöstrand graduated magna cum laude from Ohio State University in only two and a half years. She applied to the school’s Ph.D program in School Psychology, where her grade-point average (3.87) was tied for highest in the applicant pool and her GRE scores (combined 1110) exceeded OSU requirements. Sjöstrand suffers from Crohn’s disease. She claims that, in interviews, two of the program’s professors focused on her disease. Of seven applicants interviewed by the school, only Sjöstrand was rejected. She was initially told only that she did “not fit the program.” She sued under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701. The district court granted OSU summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that jury questions remained regarding whether she was rejected because of her disability.View "Sjostrand v. Ohio St. Univ." on Justia Law

Pierson, a Plant Facilities Manager at QG with 39 years of experience in printing and seven years with QG, was terminated after the CEO announced a comprehensive company-wide cost-cutting initiative. Pierson, then 62 years old, had never received a negative performance evaluation and was never disciplined, reprimanded, or warned about performance deficiencies. After he was fired, his job duties were assumed by a 47-year-old employee engaged in energy-procurement and capital projects management functions at another facility. The district court entered summary judgment for QG. The Sixth Circuit vacated, finding that the record established a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Pierson’s position was eliminated or whether he was simply replaced by a younger individual. View "Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp." on Justia Law

Ohio State Trooper Reno noticed a tractor-trailer stopped on the shoulder of the ramp connecting Route 46 to I-80. Worried that the truck posed a safety hazard, Reno approached and noticed that the engine was running and that no one appeared to be in the cab. Reno knocked on the truck door and, after a few minutes, Bradley emerged from the sleeper area of the cab. As he spoke to Bradley, Reno noticed that Bradley’s breath smelled of alcohol, his eyes appeared red and glassy, and his speech was slurred. When asked, Bradley admitted that he had consumed a “couple” “small pitchers” of beer and a “couple” bottles of beer an hour or two earlier at a truck stop 15 miles away. Bradley stated that he had parked on the shoulder to sleep, but he could not explain why he had stopped on the ramp rather than at a rest stop 200–300 feet away. Bradley failed two field sobriety tests and was swaying, losing his balance and failing to follow basic instructions. Reno arrested Bradley. A breathalyzer test at the Highway Patrol office confirmed that Bradley’s blood-alcohol content (.111%) exceeded the Ohio limit for commercial drivers (.04%). Denying a motion to suppress, the state court found that Reno had probable cause to arrest Bradley, but a jury acquitted Bradley. Invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983, Bradley sued. The district court awarded the defendants summary judgment, finding that the state court’s ruling precluded Bradley from relitigating probable cause. The Sixth Circuit vacated, finding that issue preclusion did not bar the suit. View "Bradley v. Reno" on Justia Law

The prosecutor offered petitioner a plea that would have eliminated the mandatory-minimum sentence of 10 years for drug trafficking with a sentence of three to 10 years. Petitioner was then 18 years old and had no felony record. The prosecutor disclosed the nature of “exceptionally compelling” evidence planned for trial Petitioner did not accept the plea because, he alleges, his attorney encouraged him to go to trial “if I got 10 years on a plea bargain, I had no chance to appeal … I was never told that if I had never been to prison before, the Judge was required to at least consider giving me the minimum sentence … that if I took the plea bargain and got the maximum 10 years sentence, it could be appealed.” After his conviction, petitioner’s mother explained the rejection of the plea to his first counsel on appeal, Long, who viewed the conviction as “shooting fish in a barrel.” He did not advise them of the filing deadline, but let the 180-day period for challenges outside the trial record pass. After the Ohio appeals court affirmed the conviction another attorney unsuccessfully tried to reopen the appeal on the basis of ineffective assistance by Long. Petitioner then sought federal habeas relief, acknowledging that his ineffective trial counsel claim should have been raised in a post-conviction proceeding, but arguing that failure to do so should be excused by Long’s actions. The district judge denied relief, reasoning that appointed appellate counsel was not obligated to provide advice outside the direct appeal, for which there is no constitutional right to an attorney. The Sixth Circuit reversed. View "Gunner v. Welch" on Justia Law

In1983, Leach was shot to death in the van from which he sold produce in Cleveland. Tyler and Head were indicted for aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. Head pled guilty to both and the death-penalty specification was dismissed. Tyler was twice convicted of aggravated murder. At both trials, Head testified against Tyler. After the second trial, the asked: If one group of jurors is positive that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors and wishes to recommend the death penalty, but the remaining jurors are just as positive that the mitigating factors are strong enough not to recommend the death penalty—and neither group is willing to change that decision, what is the proper procedure…. The court urged them to reach a decision, referring to time and expense. Tyler was again sentenced to death. Ohio courts affirmed. In 1999, Tyler sought habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254, with 64 claims, including that the prosecution failed to disclose that Head received sentencing consideration for testifying and was threatened with adverse consequences at the second trial if he did not testify. Another claim argued that the court improperly charged the jury. Head invoked the privilege against self-incrimination; the prosecutor refused to extend immunity. The district court denied a motion to compel and rejected the petition. In 2002, Tyler sent a letter to his habeas counsel, stating that the court failed to address the improper jury instruction. Tyler requested that counsel alert the court to its omission and reiterated the request twice. In 2013 he moved for relief from the judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(6), asserting counsel’s inexcusable neglect. The district court denied the motion. The Sixth circuit affirmed.View "Tyler v. Anderson" on Justia Law

While being held in Saginaw County Jail on a misdemeanor charge relating to failure to pay court fines, Rouster succumbed to sepsis and died as a result of a perforated duodenal ulcer. Before his death, he had complained of stomach pain, engaged in bizarre behaviors indicative of mental-health problems, and displayed signs of agitation. His estate, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the medical staff members who interacted with Rouster during the final 36 hours of his life, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Experts agreed that prompt medical attention could have saved his life and that Rouster received substandard care. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that it could not conclude that the medical staff became aware of Rouster’s serious medical need and deliberately refused to provide appropriate treatment.View "Rouster v. Saginaw Cnty." on Justia Law