Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Creamery filed suit against the State, contending that the State's refusal to allow it to call its product "skim milk" amounted to censorship in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for the State, determining that the State's refusal to allow the Creamery to use the term "skim milk" withstood scrutiny under the threshold inquiry of the Central Hudson test for commercial speech regulations. The court held that the State's actions prohibiting the Creamery's truthful use of the term "skim milk" violated the First Amendment. Under the threshold question of Central Hudson, the court concluded that the speech at issue neither concerned unlawful activity nor was inherently misleading. Therefore, the speech merits First Amendment protection and the State's restriction was subject to intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson. The court concluded that the State's mandate was clearly more extensive than necessary to serve its interest in preventing deception and ensuring adequate nutritional standards. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Ocheesee Creamery LLC v. Putnam" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death, suffered strokes in recent years resulting in significant cognitive and physical decline. Petitioner sought habeas relief, arguing that he was mentally incompetent to be executed under Ford v. Wainwright and Panetti v. Quarterman. The Alabama trial court decided that petitioner was competent to be executed. The court agreed with petitioner that the trial court's decision relied on an unreasonable determination of the facts and involved an unreasonable application of Panetti. The court explained that Panetti required courts to look at whether the prisoner was able to rationally understand the connection between the crime he committed and the punishment he was to receive. In this case, one of the experts testified that due to a mental disorder, petitioner was not able to make this connection, and another expert never addressed this question at all. The court concluded that this record was therefore wholly insufficient to support the trial court's decision. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of habeas relief. View "Madison v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, petitioned for habeas relief, arguing that his earlier motion to vacate was inadequate to test his objection to his sentence enhancement because the court's caselaw about the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), has changed. The court concluded that, because the motion to vacate gave petitioner an opportunity to challenge his sentence enhancement, his remedy was not inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence, regardless of any later change in caselaw. The court joined the Tenth Circuit in applying the law as Congress wrote it and held that a change in caselaw does not make a motion to vacate a prisoner's sentence "inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention," 28 U.S.C. 2255(e). Accordingly, the court overruled the Wofford v. Scott test as applied in Bryant v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium and Mackey v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium, and affirmed the dismissal of the petition for habeas relief. View "McCarthan v. Director of Goodwill Industries-Suncoast" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against her employer, alleging that she was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation and gender non-conformity, and retaliated against after she lodged a complaint with her employer's human resources department. The district court dismissed her pro se complaint. The court held that discrimination based on failure to conform to a gender stereotype was sex-based discrimination. In this case, a gender non-conformity claim was not "just another way to claim discrimination based on sexual orientation," but instead constituted a separate, distinct avenue for relief under Title VII. Therefore, the court vacated the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's gender non-conformity claim with prejudice and remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff leave to amend such claim. The court concluded that binding precedent, Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., foreclosed plaintiff's argument that she had stated a claim under Title VII by alleging that she endured workplace discrimination because of her sexual orientation. The Blum court held that discharge for homosexuality was not prohibited by Title VII. Therefore, the court affirmed the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's sexual orientation claim. Finally, the court considered any challenge to the district court's treatment of plaintiff's retaliation claim as waived. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which also served under the court's rules as a petition for rehearing before the panel. The court granted the petition for rehearing to the panel to the extent that the court vacated its previous opinion and substituted in its place this one. Petitioner, convicted of battery and sexual battery of a five-year-old in Florida, appealed the dismissal of his habeas petition. The court granted him a certificate of appealability on the the issue of whether the district court improperly determined that his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition was time-barred, based on its finding that he was not entitled to equitable tolling. The court held that an attorney's negligence, even gross negligence, or misunderstanding about the law is not by itself a serious instance of attorney misconduct for equitable tolling purposes, even though it does violate the ABA model rules as all, or virtually all, attorney negligence does. Because petitioner showed, at most, that his failure to meet the filing deadline was the product of his attorney’s good faith but negligent or grossly negligent misunderstanding of the law, the district court properly dismissed the habeas petition as untimely. View "Cadet v. Florida Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Georgia state prisoner, filed suit alleging that the grooming policy enforced in Georgia state prisons violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the GDOC substantially burdened his exercise of a sincerely held religious belief that Islam requires him to grow an uncut beard. The district court granted summary judgment for the GDOC. The court concluded that the Supreme Court's opinion in Holt v. Hobbs rendered the district court's analysis inadequate. The court vacated and remanded for further consideration because the district court never analyzed the substantial burden, compelling interest, or least restrictive means of plaintiff's case, and because the GDOC has revised its grooming policy since the district court rendered its decision. View "Smith v. Owens" on Justia Law

This case concerns certain provisions of Florida's Firearms Owners' Privacy Act (FOPA), Fla. Stat. 790.338, 456.072, 395.1055, & 381.026. The district court held that FOPA's record-keeping, inquiry, anti-discrimination, and anti-harassment provisions violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. Exercising plenary review and applying heightened scrutiny as articulated in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., the court agreed with the district court that FOPA's content-based restrictions—the record-keeping, inquiry, and anti-harassment provisions—violate the First Amendment as it applies to the states. The court explained that, because these three provisions do not survive heightened scrutiny under Sorrell, the court need not address whether strict scrutiny should apply to them. The court concluded, however, that FOPA's anti-discrimination provision—as construed to apply to certain conduct by doctors and medical professionals—is not unconstitutional. Finally, the court concurred with the district court's assessment that the unconstitutional provisions of FOPA can be severed from the rest of the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded so that the judgment and permanent injunction can be amended in accordance with this opinion. View "Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging excessive force, assault, and battery. The district court granted law enforcement officers summary judgment based on qualified and official immunity. Officer Deaton threw a diversionary device, known as a “flashbang,” into a dark room occupied by plaintiff and her boyfriend, who were asleep, without first visually inspecting the room. The court concluded that Deaton used excessive force, but he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that his conduct violated the Constitution. The court also concluded that Deaton is entitled to official immunity because plaintiff failed to prove that Deaton intended to injure plaintiff. Finally, Deaton's supervisor is also entitled to qualified immunity from the complaint against his subordinate. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dukes v. Deaton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court dismissed the complaints based on statute of limitations grounds. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) maintains a Driver and Vehicle Information Database (DAVID), which contains drivers' personal information. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants repeatedly accessed plaintiffs' private information through the DAVID database without their knowledge or consent. The court concluded that the statute of limitations began to run on plaintiffs' claims when the alleged DPPA violations occurred; plaintiffs have failed to present any theory that would entitle their claims to be treated as filed within the limitations period; and thus their actions are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Foudy v. Indian River County Sheriff's Office" on Justia Law

Defendants, correctional officers who were members of the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT), were indicted and charged with various civil rights, conspiracy, and obstruction-of-justice violations stemming from alleged abuses of prisoners and subsequent cover-ups. Officers Rushin and Hall were found guilty of one count of Conspiracy to Obstruct and two counts of Obstruction of Justice. Defendant Lach was convicted of Deprivation of Rights, Conspiracy to Obstruct, and Obstruction of Justice. The court found no error on the part of the district judge. The court also concluded that the record reveals that defendants had adequate ability to make their arguments to the jury and that the minimal restrictions put in place regarding cross examination and admission of evidence were reasonable in light of the arguments made to the district judge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rushin" on Justia Law