Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, the father and minor children of the deceased Samuel De Boise, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against police officers and the police department, as well as a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., against the county. The district court granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Lively and Percich, and to the county. The court concluded that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances; even if Officer Percich's and Lively's repeated tasings of Samuel amounted to excessive force in violation of Samuel's Fourth Amendment rights, such rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident; and the facts in this case did not demonstrate any violation of the ADA, considering the unexpected and rapidly evolving circumstances and the use of force on Samuel was due to his objectively verifiable misconduct, not his disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "De Boise, Sr., et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, both individually and as the administrator of Bradley Gladden's estate, filed suit against officers and the police chief, alleging that the officers violated Bradley's rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101 et seq., as well as committed the tort of wrongful death under the Arkansas Wrongful Death Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-62-101 et seq. Bradley had requested that the officers give him a ride to his sister's house in the next county because he was intoxicated, but the officers instead left him at an isolated off-ramp at the county line, which was the edge of the officers' jurisdiction. The officers instructed Bradley to seek help at a nearby factory. Bradley ended up dying of hypothermia a half-mile from the drop-off, in the opposite direction of the factory. Where the Fourteenth Amendment generally does not give private citizens a constitutional right to police assistance, the court concluded that plaintiff could not establish that a special relationship existed because Bradley accepted a ride from the officers and was sober enough to make this decision rationally; and Bradley cannot avail himself of the constitutional right to police assistance based on a custodial relationship with the state. The court also concluded that Bradley's official capacity claims failed where, assuming that it was the Police Department's custom to give rides to persons in its jurisdictions, plaintiff could not demonstrate an affirmative duty of care. Consequently, plaintiff's state law claims also failed. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity, in granting official immunity to all defendants, and dismissing the state-law claims. View "Gladden, Jr. v. Richbourg, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, falsely accused of rape and jailed for seventeen days, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and police officers. Plaintiff alleged that the officers failed to account for certain evidence defendant claimed was exculpatory, both in investigating the claim and in drafting an affidavit used to obtain an arrest warrant. The court concluded that the officers' decision to focus on other investigative leads rather than pursue tenuous, circumstantial, and potentially biased testimony from bar patrons neither shocks the conscience nor indicates recklessness; the officers' reaction to the investigator's suspicion of the photos of the victim demonstrated the even-handedness of their investigation where they soon called in a forensic nurse and then confronted the victim; and plaintiff's remaining allegations of reckless failures on the part of the officers was without merit. Further, plaintiff failed to show any omissions in the affidavit that demonstrated that the officers were reckless. Without a constitutional violation by the officers, there can be no liability for the county. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, which found no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers committed any constitutional violations. View "Hawkins v. Gage County, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, CSG, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. The court concluded that, assuming without deciding, that plaintiff established a prima facie case of gender discrimination, CSG offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification for terminating her employment where CSG identified substantial performance-related problems; plaintiff failed to prove there was pretext for the gender discrimination; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination claim. Likewise, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that CSG's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating her employment was pretextual. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's retaliation claim as well. View "Fiero v. CSG Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that deputies used excessive force that resulted in Jimmy Farris' death. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in weighing the interests of justice with due regard to the importance of live testimony and concluding that the circumstances here - the deputy's deployment to Afghanistan precluded him from appearing at trial without extraordinary effort, cost, and other hardship - tipped the balance in favor of admitting the deputy's deposition testimony. Even if the district court abused its discretion in admitting the deputy's deposition testimony, the error would be harmless where plaintiffs were not prejudiced. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. View "McDowell, et al. v. Blankenship, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging claims related to her candidacy as a legal writing instructor at the Iowa College of Law. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's denial of her motion for a new trial. The court held that where a court declares a mistrial and discharges the jury which then disperses from the confines of the courtroom, the jury can no longer render, reconsider, amend, or clarify a verdict on the mistrial counts. In this case, the court concluded that the magistrate judge erred in recalling the jury to question and re-poll them as to the mistried, or not, counts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Wagner v. Jones, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging false arrest and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to preserve the issue of whether the district court erred when it vacated the partial grant of summary judgment on the issue of liability in the false arrest claim; whether plaintiff made a Rule 50(a) motion is moot because they failed to preserve the issue by making a post-judgment Rule 50(b) motion; and the district court did not abuse its consideration discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hoffmeyer, et al. v. Porter, et al." on Justia Law

MHFS filed suit against the County, the Commission, and others for interfering with its business operations at the Baxter County Airport. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing MHFS's claims for breach of contract where MHFS did not allege any breach of contract distinct from the breach of the duty to act in good faith; Arkansas law does not recognize a "continuing tort" theory; even if the court were to assume such acts were intentional, MHFS failed to state a claim for intentional interference with its business relationship; the district court correctly dismissed MHFS's civil rights claims for denial of procedural due process where MHFS was not deprived of any property or liberty interest; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend following its dismissal of the action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mountain Home Flight Service v. Baxter County, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the officer who restrained him while executing a search warrant. Even assuming without deciding that the officer recklessly disregarded the misleading effect that omitting the facts at issue would have on the judge's probable cause determination, the officer was still entitled to qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence submitted to the judge would have been sufficient to support a probable cause finding even if the officer's oral affidavit had included the omitted facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer. View "Block v. Dupic" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Erik Kirk Kolski, filed suit against the City and police officers, alleging that defendants violated Kolski's constitutional rights when the officers used deadly force against Kolski during a response to a domestic disturbance with a weapon. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Glirbas and Cudd where the use of deadly force was constitutionally permissible because Kolski made threats and possessed a firearm. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Officers Glirbas and Cudd on the state-law claims on the basis of official immunity where plaintiff identified no evidence showing that the officers intentionally committed an act that they had reason to believe was prohibited and, instead, the evidence demonstrated that they acted reasonably in response to a significant threat of death or physical injury. View "Smith v. City of Brooklyn Park, et al." on Justia Law