Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, parents of GPR, filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that an officer used excessive force when he shot and killed GPR. GPR and his accomplice were fleeing from the police when GPR, who was driving a truck, reversed and backed rapidly in the direction of the officer, and the officer, fearing for his life, fired at GPR and killed him. The court held that Heck v. Humphrey barred plaintiffs' suit. Plaintiffs sought to show that the officer used excessive force, but the jury that convicted GPR's accomplice had already determined that the officer acted within the scope of his employment and did not use excessive force. Accordingly, a verdict in plaintiffs' favor would tend to undermine the accomplice's conviction. Moreover, the accomplice challenged the propriety of the officer's actions in her criminal trial, her interests in doing so were in no way inconsistent with plaintiffs' interests, and the accomplice was convicted by a jury.

The State of Nevada appealed the district court's permanent injunction prohibiting the retroactive application of two Nevada laws: Assembly Bill 579, expanding the scope of sex offender registration and notification requirements, and Senate Bill 471, imposing, inter alia, residency and movement restrictions on certain sex offenders. The district court permanently enjoined retroactive application of both bills. With respect to Assembly Bill 579, the court held that its retroactive application was constitutionally sound and reversed the judgment of the district court. With respect to Senate Bill 471, the court concluded that its consideration of its disputed provisions was mooted by the State's authoritative judicial admission that - regardless of the existence of the injunction - the State would not retroactively impose residency and movement restrictions. Because the State's concession mooted its own appeal, the court remanded to the district court to consider vacating its order as to Senate Bill 471 in favor of a binding consent decree. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's order denying a stay on payment of attorney's fees.

This appeal arose when the People of California adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. At issue was whether this amendment violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court declined to address the more general questions presented to it concerning the rights of same-sex couples to marry. The court concluded that, through the proponents of ballot measures, the People of California must be allowed to defend in federal courts, including on appeal, the validity of their use of the initiative power. Accordingly, the proponents possessed Article III standing to prosecute this appeal from the district court's judgment invalidating Proposition 8. However, the court concluded that the People could not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry. By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without legitimate reasons for doing so, the People violated the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, the court held that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional on this ground and affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion by the official sponsors of Proposition 8 to vacate the judgment entered by former Chief Judge Walker, on the basis of his purported interest in being allowed to marry his same-sex partner.

This case concerned California's adoption of an initiative constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion by ordering the unsealing of the video recording of the trial, which had purportedly been prepared by the trial judge for his in-chambers use only and was later placed in the record and sealed by him. The order, issued by his successor following his retirement, would permit the broadcast of the recording for all to view. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion by ordering the unsealing of the recording of the trial notwithstanding the trial judge's commitment to the parties that the recording would not be publicly broadcasted. The district court further abused its discretion by holding that the determinations made by the trial judge regarding the placement of the recording under seal did not bind a different judge presented with a motion to unseal - a conclusion the court regarded as an "implausible" and "illogical" application of the law. Therefore, the court reversed the order of the district court and remanded with instructions to maintain the recording under seal.

Plaintiffs sued Roommate.com in federal court, alleging that the website's questions requiring disclosure of sex, sexual orientation and familial status, and its sorting, steering and matching of users based on those characteristics violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12955. Because precluding individuals from selecting roommates based on their sex, sexual orientation and familial status raised substantial constitutional concerns, the court interpreted the FHA and the FEHA as not applying to the shared living units. Therefore, the court held that Roommate.com's prompting, sorting and publishing of information to facilitate roommate selection was not forbidden by the FHA or the FEHA. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for entry of judgment for defendant. Because plaintiffs were no longer prevailing, the court vacated the district court's order for attorney's fees and dismissed the cross-appeal on attorney's fees as moot.

Plaintiff, a minor, brought federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state negligence claims against the County and its employee social workers (collectively, defendants). Plaintiff, sexually assaulted by his 17-year-old foster brother while living in a foster family home, contended that defendants failed to intervene prior to his sexual assault, despite their knowledge of the escalating threats and violence against him. The district court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the County. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion because the district court denied leave to amend where plaintiff was denied the opportunity to allege additional facts supporting the claim that defendant's constitutional violations were carried out pursuant to County policy or custom and where the County's derivative liability was tied directly to the negligence of, or successful assertion of immunity by, its employees. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision and vacated the judgment.

Defendant filed a due process hearing complaint with California's Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), alleging that he was being denied the free appropriate public education (FAPE) that he was entitled to under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: Does California Education Code 56041 - which provided generally that for qualifying children ages eighteen to twenty-two, the school district where the child's parent resides is responsible for providing special education services - apply to children who are incarcerated in county jails? The case was withdrawn from submission and further proceedings were stayed pending final action by the Supreme Court of California.

Plaintiff, a former inmate in the ODOC, sued several ODOC officials in their official capacity, alleging, among other things, that they were substantially burdening plaintiff's practice of his Native American religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc to 2000cc-5. At issue was what relief was available to plaintiff. The court concluded that money damages were not available under RLUIPA against state officials sued in their official capacity. Because the ODOC had released plaintiff from its custody, his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims.

The district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State of Washington from enforcing its limitation on contributions to political committees supporting the recall of a state or county official. The court concluded that plaintiffs satisfied their burden under Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., to demonstrate that the contribution limit was likely an unconstitutional and harmful burden on plaintiffs' rights of free speech under the First Amendment. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting the injunction and the court affirmed the judgment.

This case concerned the Washington State Grange's proposed People's Choice Initiative of 2004, or Initiative 872. I-872 created a "top two" primary in which the primary served as a means of winnowing the candidates to two rather than selecting party nominees. At issue was whether the State of Washington had designed its election ballots in a manner that eliminated the risk of widespread voter confusion, a question left unresolved in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. The court held that the state had done so. The ballots, and related informational material, informed voters that, although each candidate for partisan office could specify a political party that he or she preferred, a candidate's preference did not imply that the candidate was nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approved of or associated with that candidate. Given the design of the ballot, and in the absence of evidence of actual voter confusion, the court held that Washington's top primary system, as implemented by the state, did not violate the First Amendment associational rights of the state's political parties. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' ballot access and trademark claims. The court reversed the district court's order granting the state's request for reimbursement of attorney's fees paid in accordance with a 2006 stipulation.