Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Brian Albert, a bank compliance officer, sought certification as a money-laundering examiner by taking an exam administered by the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists. Due to his anxiety and learning disorders, Albert requested to take the closed-book exam in an open-book format. The Association denied this request but offered other accommodations, such as extended time and a separate testing area. Albert sued the Association under § 309 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the denial violated his rights.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, concluding that § 309 did not require the Association to provide an open-book format as it would fundamentally alter the nature of the exam. Albert appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the case, instructing the district court to evaluate the claim under § 309 of the ADA, not § 302.On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the Association, holding that Albert's request for an open-book exam was not reasonable as it would fundamentally alter the exam's nature. The court relied on the Association's evidence that the exam was designed to test a candidate's knowledge without reliance on external materials, and allowing an open-book format would lower the standard for certification.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that § 309 of the ADA does not require a test provider to offer accommodations that would fundamentally alter the nature of its exam. Since Albert's request for an open-book format would change what the exam measures, it was not a reasonable accommodation under § 309. View "Albert v. Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC" on Justia Law

Edward Burrell, an inmate at Clarke County Jail, suffered a heart attack while serving a sentence. Chief Deputy Sheriff and Jail Administrator Tyler Norris drove Burrell to the hospital instead of calling an ambulance and released him from jail to avoid medical costs. Burrell died shortly after arriving at the hospital. Barbara Donald, administratrix of Burrell's estate, claimed that Norris's actions delayed medical care and caused Burrell's death, bringing a federal constitutional claim and an Alabama wrongful-death claim.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denied Norris's motion for summary judgment on both claims. The court held that Norris was not entitled to qualified immunity because he acted outside his discretionary authority by releasing Burrell early. The court also found that a reasonable jury could determine Norris's actions violated Burrell's constitutional rights. The court did not address whether Norris's actions violated clearly established law. For the wrongful-death claim, the court denied summary judgment under Alabama’s jailer immunity statute, concluding Norris was not acting within the scope of his duties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Norris acted within his discretionary authority when he decided to drive Burrell to the hospital. The court emphasized that the discretionary-authority inquiry focuses on the general nature of the action, not whether the officer made the correct decision. The court found that Norris's actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional right and concluded that Norris was entitled to qualified immunity for the federal claim, reversing the district court's denial of summary judgment.Regarding the state wrongful-death claim, the court noted that the district court conflated state immunity with statutory jailer immunity. The court vacated the district court's denial of summary judgment on the state claim and remanded for the district court to determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and, if so, to decide the issue of state immunity. View "Donald v. Norris" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn, allege that the Leon County School Board and its officials violated their parental due-process rights. The dispute arose when school officials met with the Littlejohns' thirteen-year-old child to discuss the child's gender identity and developed a "Student Support Plan" without involving the parents, contrary to their wishes. The school officials acted in compliance with the Board's guidelines, which did not require parental notification if the child did not request it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida dismissed the Littlejohns' claims. The court found that the release of a new guide in 2022 mooted the claims for injunctive relief based on the superseded 2018 guide. It also determined that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the damages claims. The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not "shock the conscience" and thus did not violate the Littlejohns' substantive due-process rights. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the actions of the school officials were executive, not legislative, in nature. Therefore, the appropriate standard was whether the officials' conduct "shocked the conscience." The court concluded that the school officials' actions did not meet this standard as a matter of law. The court emphasized that the officials did not act with intent to injure and sought to help the child, even if their actions were contrary to the parents' wishes. Thus, the dismissal of the Littlejohns' claims was affirmed. View "Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County" on Justia Law

Chanon Miller was arrested by deputies from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office for simple battery against her ex-fiancé. She subsequently sued the Sheriff’s Office and unnamed deputies, alleging violations of her constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizure, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Miller's complaint was amended to name specific deputies as defendants.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied the deputies' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, stating that the issue was more appropriately resolved at the summary judgment stage or later in the proceedings. The court found that Miller's allegations were sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief and allowed her to file an amended complaint naming the appropriate defendants. The district court reiterated its position when the deputies renewed their motion to dismiss after being named in the amended complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court erred by failing to adjudicate the defense of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage. The appellate court emphasized that qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, not just a defense to liability, and must be resolved at the earliest possible stage in litigation. The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to rule on the deputies' entitlement to qualified immunity, requiring a claim-by-claim and defendant-by-defendant analysis. View "Miller v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Michael Chapman, an Alabama inmate, sued prison officials and staff for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Chapman alleged that an untreated ear infection led to severe injuries, including mastoiditis, a ruptured eardrum, and a brain abscess. He also claimed that the prison's refusal to perform cataract surgery on his right eye constituted deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants except the prison’s medical contractor, which had filed for bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found Chapman’s claim against nurse Charlie Waugh time-barred and ruled against Chapman on other claims, including his request for injunctive relief against Commissioner John Hamm, citing sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that Chapman’s claims against other defendants failed on the merits and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s determination that Chapman’s claim against Waugh was time-barred, finding that Chapman’s cause of action accrued within the limitations period. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for Waugh and remanded for reconsideration in light of the recent en banc decision in Wade, which clarified the standard for deliberate indifference claims. The court also vacated the judgment for Hamm on Chapman’s cataract-related claim for injunctive relief, as sovereign immunity does not bar such claims. Additionally, the court vacated the summary judgment for all other defendants due to procedural errors, including inadequate notice and time for Chapman to respond, and remanded for further consideration. View "Chapman v. Dunn" on Justia Law

Michael Horton, an Alabama prisoner, filed a pro se lawsuit against two correctional officers, alleging that they subjected him to an unconstitutional body-cavity search. Horton claimed that during an institution-wide search, he was ordered to strip and undergo a body-cavity search in the presence of female officers, which violated his religious beliefs. Horton's complaint included claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and sought injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama required the officers to provide documents and evidence, and Horton was given an opportunity to respond. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers and dismissed Horton’s lawsuit with prejudice. Horton argued that the district court erred by not allowing him to amend his complaint to include new factual allegations before granting summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the rule requiring a pro se plaintiff to be given an opportunity to amend their complaint before dismissal with prejudice applies only in the context of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals, not summary judgment. The court found that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment without sua sponte allowing Horton to amend his complaint. The court also noted that Horton had been given sufficient notice and opportunity to respond to the summary judgment motion but failed to provide a signed declaration with new facts.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Horton was not entitled to amend his complaint sua sponte before the summary judgment was granted. View "Horton v. Captain Gilchrist" on Justia Law

The case involves Jose Rosado, a Hispanic male of Colombian origin, who worked as an Information Technology (IT) Specialist for the United States Navy. Rosado alleged that he was denied promotions on five occasions between 2014 and 2018 due to race, national origin, and age discrimination, as well as retaliation for his prior Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity. The promotions in question were for various IT Specialist positions within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast (NAVFAC SE).In the lower court, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment in favor of the Navy. The court concluded that Rosado failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation for any of the promotion decisions. Specifically, the court found that Rosado did not provide sufficient evidence to show that he was equally or more qualified than the individuals who were selected for the positions or that the Navy's decisions were influenced by discriminatory or retaliatory motives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Rosado did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to show that the selected candidates were similarly situated in all material respects or that unlawful discrimination played any part in the Navy's decision-making process. Additionally, the court found that Rosado did not present sufficient evidence to support his retaliation claims, as there was no indication that retaliatory animus influenced the Navy's actions.In summary, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Navy, concluding that Rosado did not provide enough evidence to support his claims of discrimination and retaliation. View "Rosado v. Secretary, U.S. Department of the Navy" on Justia Law

Rhonda Fleming, an inmate at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee (FCIT), filed a pro se lawsuit against Warden Erica Strong and the United States, alleging Eighth Amendment violations due to her exposure to mold, asbestos, and COVID-19, which she claimed caused severe health issues. Fleming sought injunctive relief and damages under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). She alleged that despite her complaints, the prison officials, including Warden Strong, failed to address the hazardous conditions, leading to her contracting COVID-19 twice and requiring hospitalization.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing most of Fleming's claims, including all claims against Strong, citing that Bivens did not provide a remedy for her Eighth Amendment claim. However, the district court disagreed, finding that Fleming's Eighth Amendment claim was similar to a previously recognized Bivens claim and allowed it to proceed. The district court did not address the issue of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order recognizing a Bivens cause of action. The Eleventh Circuit joined four other circuits in holding that the collateral-order doctrine does not extend to Bivens-extension orders that do not address qualified immunity. The court emphasized that qualified immunity adequately protects government officials from the burdens of litigation and that separation-of-powers concerns with Bivens extensions do not justify immediate appeal. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fleming v. FCI Tallahassee Warden" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Georgia district attorney and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendants conspired to violate his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff, employed as the director of the police department's crime lab, was terminated from his position after the district attorney contacted the police chief to express his concerns that plaintiff had written an expert report for and planned to testify on behalf of the defense in a criminal case. The Eleventh Circuit held that prosecutors were not entitled to absolute immunity for their alleged actions in this case because those actions were not taken in their role as advocates. However, the prosecutors were entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting within the outer perimeter of their discretionary skills in expressing concerns about plaintiff's outside work, and the law was not clearly established at the time. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of the prosecutors' motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity and remanded. View "Mikko v. Howard" on Justia Law

Georgia law by its terms does not provide for negligence actions directly against dogs. In this case, plaintiff filed suit against a police canine, Draco, and others after Draco inflicted serious damage to plaintiff when Draco refused to release his bite. The Eleventh Circuit held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no binding precedent clearly established that their actions in allowing Draco to apprehend plaintiff violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights; the County and Chief Ayers in his official capacity have sovereign immunity; and Defendants Fransen, Towler, Ross, and Ayers were entitled to official immunity for the claims against them in their individual capacities View "Jones v. Officer S. Fransen" on Justia Law