Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A man was arrested by city police officers in Rainsville, Alabama, after exhibiting erratic behavior and resisting arrest. The Chief of Police directed Officer White to transport the arrestee to the county jail in Fort Payne, which had better medical facilities. Upon arrival at the county jail, jailers became frustrated with the arrestee during booking and began to beat him. Officer White witnessed the beating from a few feet away but did not attempt to intervene or protest. The beating continued for several minutes after White left the room, resulting in significant injuries to the arrestee. The jailers involved were later criminally prosecuted and convicted for their conduct.The arrestee filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officer White and others, alleging, among other claims, that White’s failure to intervene violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment to the officers on the false arrest claim but denied summary judgment to White on the failure to intervene claim, rejecting his qualified immunity defense. White appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that, under clearly established law as of March 2020, an arresting officer who delivers a helpless arrestee to jailers and witnesses those jailers immediately begin to beat the arrestee in his presence violates the Fourth Amendment if he remains silent and leaves the scene while the assault is ongoing. The court further held that the duty to intervene is not discharged by a phone call to a supervisor who is not in a position to stop the assault. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Officer White on the failure to intervene claim. View "Nute v. White" on Justia Law

An inmate in Georgia, who practices veganism as part of his religious beliefs, was enrolled in a prison program that provided vegan meals to accommodate religious diets. He was removed from this program twice after prison officials discovered he had purchased non-vegan food items from the prison store, such as chicken soup and Cheetos. The inmate claimed he bought these items to sell to other prisoners and would have stopped if he had known it could result in removal from the program. At the time of his removals, the prison’s policy did not explicitly list non-vegan purchases as grounds for removal, though this was later added. The inmate also alleged that only Black inmates were removed from the program, while similarly situated white inmates were not.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted summary judgment to the prison officials on the inmate’s claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as most of his claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court found that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment and due process claims, that there was no evidence of discriminatory intent or similarly situated comparators for the equal protection claim, and that the non-vegan meals provided were nutritionally adequate. The court also dismissed the remaining RLUIPA claim as moot after the inmate was reenrolled in the vegan meal program.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 officials were entitled to qualified immunity, that there was insufficient evidence to support the equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims, and that the RLUIPA claims either failed on the merits or were moot because the inmate had been reinstated in the vegan meal program. View "Sumrall v. Georgia Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Arthur Huggins, a community member in Manatee County, Florida, regularly attended local school board meetings to criticize the School Board and Superintendent Cynthia Saunders for their decision to take control of Lincoln Memorial Academy, a Black-owned charter school, and remove its administration. Huggins was known for his outspoken opposition, including public comments and calls for investigations into the Board’s actions. At a November 2019 board meeting, after standing at the back of the room due to back pain, Huggins was ordered by the school district’s Chief of Security, at Saunders’s direction, to sit or leave. When Huggins explained his situation, he was removed from the meeting by a police officer and prevented from delivering his public comment. The incident was later publicized, and the Board and Saunders issued apologies.Huggins filed suit in state court against the School Board, Saunders, and several individuals, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights, among other claims. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The district court dismissed Huggins’s federal claims with prejudice, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that Huggins had not established municipal liability against the Board or the City of Bradenton. The court also denied Huggins’s request to amend his complaint a second time and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Huggins’s First Amendment claims against Saunders, holding that Saunders was not entitled to qualified immunity and that Huggins plausibly alleged both viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the other defendants and the denial of leave to amend, but vacated the district court’s decision declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, remanding for further proceedings. View "Huggins v. School District of Manatee County" on Justia Law

Two Black celebrities brought suit after being stopped by Clayton County, Georgia police officers on the jet bridge while boarding flights at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The officers, as part of a drug interdiction program, stopped passengers after they had cleared security and boarding checks, requested and retained their identification and boarding passes, questioned them about drugs, and asked to search their luggage. Both plaintiffs alleged they felt coerced, were not free to leave, and believed they had no choice but to comply. They further alleged that the program disproportionately targeted Black passengers and that the stops were neither random nor consensual.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed all claims. It found the encounters were voluntary and not seizures under the Fourth Amendment, that any searches were consensual, and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege racial discrimination or a policy supporting municipal liability. The court also granted qualified immunity to the individual officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged they were subjected to unreasonable seizures and, in one case, an unreasonable search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court found that the circumstances—officers blocking the plaintiffs’ paths, retaining their documents, and questioning them in a confined space—amounted to seizures, and that the search was not voluntary. However, the court affirmed qualified immunity for the individual officers, as the law was not clearly established. The court also found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a policy or custom by Clayton County that could support municipal liability under Monell. The court affirmed dismissal of the equal protection claims, finding insufficient allegations of discriminatory intent. The court reversed in part, allowing the Fourth Amendment claims against Clayton County to proceed. View "Andre v. Clayton County" on Justia Law

A transgender prisoner, Robert Bayse, who identifies as a woman named Robbin, is serving two concurrent life sentences in a Georgia prison. Bayse suffers from gender dysphoria and borderline personality disorder and receives hormone therapy and mental-health counseling. Previously, Bayse was allowed to follow female grooming and cosmetic standards at another prison. However, at the current prison, these accommodations were denied, leading Bayse to file a lawsuit against several prison officials, alleging that the denial violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia denied the officials' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the social transitioning accommodations were medically necessary and whether the officials acted with deliberate indifference. The court also concluded that the officials were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established that denying medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria constituted deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the burden of proving medical necessity for the social transitioning accommodations was on Bayse, and Bayse failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet this burden. The court also determined that the district court erred in its analysis of clearly established law by relying on nonprecedential decisions. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit instructed the district court to grant qualified immunity to the prison officials. View "Bayse v. Philbin" on Justia Law

Brandon Fulton alleged that Fulton County took his horses without justification and without paying for them, violating the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. He initially sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but could not establish that the County acted under an official policy or custom, as required by Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York City.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed Fulton’s § 1983 claim and denied his motion to amend his complaint to sue directly under the Takings Clause. The district court reasoned that plaintiffs must sue under § 1983 for constitutional takings claims against municipalities and that Fulton failed to allege an official policy or custom causing the violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment directly authorizes a suit for "just compensation" in federal court. The court held that the Takings Clause is self-executing and guarantees a monetary remedy when the government takes private property. The court emphasized that the Takings Clause provides a direct cause of action independent of § 1983, especially when no other adequate remedy exists. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Fulton to amend his complaint to sue directly under the Takings Clause. View "Brandon Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

Joseph Heid filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Orange County Sheriff's Deputies Mark Rutkoski and Forrest Best, alleging they used unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The incident occurred after Heid had a domestic dispute, left his house, and later returned armed with a rifle. He engaged in a gunfight with deputies in his backyard and then re-entered his house. When he exited the house again, Deputies Rutkoski and Best, believing he was still armed, shot him multiple times.In the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Heid was found guilty of several charges, including Attempted Second Degree Murder of a Law Enforcement Officer and Resisting an Officer with Violence. Heid then filed a civil lawsuit, and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the deputies' motion for summary judgment, which asserted qualified immunity. The District Court found there was a genuine factual dispute regarding whether the deputies used excessive force and whether Heid posed a threat when he exited the house.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Deputies Rutkoski and Best did not violate Heid's Fourth Amendment rights. The court reasoned that the deputies reasonably believed Heid was armed and dangerous based on the information they had, including Heid's recent gunfight with other deputies and his rapid exit from the house. The court held that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances and that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity. The judgment of the District Court was reversed, and the case was remanded. View "Heid v. Rutkoski" on Justia Law

John Labriola, a media aide for the Miami-Dade Board of County Commissioners, wrote an inflammatory opinion piece criticizing the Equality Act, using derogatory language towards the LGBT community. Following public backlash and internal complaints, the County suspended him without pay, mandated anti-discrimination training, and eventually terminated him for not completing the training.Labriola sued Miami-Dade County in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights, compelled speech, and that the County's anti-discrimination policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County on all counts, applying the Pickering-Connick test to Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims, and ruling that his free-press claim was invalid because he was not a journalist.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Labriola's free speech and free exercise claims failed the Pickering-Connick balancing test, as his speech impeded the County's ability to perform its duties efficiently and disrupted workplace harmony. The court also rejected Labriola's free-press claim, noting that even though the district court erred in stating he couldn't bring the claim as a non-journalist, his claim failed on the merits. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Labriola's compelled speech claim, as the required training did not compel him to express views he disagreed with. Lastly, the court dismissed Labriola's overbreadth challenge to the County's anti-discrimination policy, as he failed to demonstrate that the policy was substantially overbroad.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Miami-Dade County on all counts. View "Labriola v. Miami-Dade County" on Justia Law

In March 1988, Isaiah Harris, a sheriff in Montgomery County, Alabama, was killed. His wife, Louise, was having an affair and conspired with her lover, Lorenzo McCarter, to have Harris killed for insurance money. McCarter recruited Michael Sockwell and Alex Hood to carry out the murder. Sockwell was later convicted of capital murder for pecuniary gain and sentenced to death.Sockwell appealed his conviction, arguing that the prosecution used peremptory strikes to exclude Black jurors in a discriminatory manner, violating Batson v. Kentucky. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) affirmed his conviction, finding no clear error in the trial court’s denial of the Batson challenge. The Alabama Supreme Court also affirmed, stating that the prosecutor’s identification of a juror’s race was merely descriptive and not a race-based reason for the strike.Sockwell then filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, which was denied. The district court found the strike of a Black juror, Eric Davis, problematic but concluded that the Alabama Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Batson. The district court granted a certificate of appealability on the Batson issue, and Sockwell appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.The Eleventh Circuit held that the Alabama Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law by not properly considering all relevant circumstances under Batson’s third step. The court found that the prosecutor’s history of Batson violations, statistical evidence of disproportionate strikes against Black jurors, and the comparison of Davis to similarly situated white jurors indicated purposeful discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling and directed it to issue a writ of habeas corpus, allowing Alabama the right to retry Sockwell. View "Sockwell v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

In the early hours of August 22, 1972, military officers at the Almirante Zar Naval Base in Trelew, Argentina, removed nineteen unarmed political prisoners from their cells and shot them, resulting in what became known as the Trelew Massacre. The plaintiffs in this case are the surviving family members of four of those prisoners. They filed a lawsuit against Roberto Guillermo Bravo, one of the officers involved in the massacre, seeking compensatory and punitive damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) for the extrajudicial killing and torture of their relatives.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard the case. A jury found Mr. Bravo liable for the deaths and awarded the plaintiffs over $24 million. Mr. Bravo appealed, arguing that the district court erred by equitably tolling the TVPA statute of limitations on the plaintiffs’ claims until October 15, 2012. The district court had concluded that extraordinary circumstances, including the plaintiffs’ fear of reprisal, inability to locate Mr. Bravo, and inability to discover crucial evidence, justified tolling the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s judgment, finding that the district court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its ruling on equitable tolling. The appellate court remanded the case for additional findings on whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable tolling beyond March 2008. The court also instructed the district court to reconsider whether the plaintiffs acted with due diligence in filing their claims, particularly in the case of Eduardo Cappello, who was found not to have acted diligently by the district court. The appellate court upheld the district court’s exclusion of evidence regarding the victims' alleged ties to communism and Cuba, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Camps v. Bravo" on Justia Law