Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After plaintiff's son, Anthony Hudson, died from a gunshot wound, plaintiff filed suit against the Lancaster police and fire departments, law enforcement officers, and a hospital and its medical personnel. The district court dismissed without prejudice. The court concluded that there was federal-question jurisdiction and the wrongful death claims should not have been dismissed; it was error for the district court - ruling without benefit of the court's decision on this issue of first impression - to dismiss Rodgers’s survival action solely because she was proceeding pro se on behalf of the estate; a person with capacity under state law to represent an estate in a survival action may proceed pro se if that person is the only beneficiary and the estate has no creditors; the court remanded for further determination as to whether Rodgers is the sole beneficiary; and the court expressed no view on the merits of Rodgers's claims. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Rodgers v. Lancaster Police & Fire Dept." on Justia Law

Parents of a severely disabled child (T.R.) prevailed in a suit against the school district where the child was abused by his special education teacher. A jury awarded a substantial verdict and the school district challenged the verdict, alleging that the parents are not the proper parties to file suit. In this case, the victim was a minor when the challenged conduct occurred but turned 18 by the time of trial; his disability rendered him incompetent even after he reached majority; a bank had been appointed to serve as his guardian; and that same bank oversaw a trust that paid for the minor’s medical bills. The court concluded that the parents have Article III standing to directly seek past medical expenses and to seek future home care expenses on behalf of T.R.; the Bank, as guardian, should have filed suit to recover the claims T.R. would otherwise possess - those for future home care expenses, physical pain and anguish, and impairment - by suing in their name on his behalf; the Bank owed a fiduciary duty to T.R., and absent a showing of conflict, the parents could not circumvent the Bank by filing suit on T.R.'s behalf; the court found that the district court's refusal to allow ratification of the parents' actions was an abuse of discretion because nothing in the text of Federal Rule 17(a)(3) or the court's decisions applying it supports the district court's decision; and federal statutes at issue do not authorize recovery for the parents' mental anguish based on the mistreatment of their son. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rideau v. Keller Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a class of children eligible for Texas's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment program, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of federal Medicaid law. Plaintiffs subsequently entered into a consent decree with various Texas state officials (defendants) calculated to improve implementation of the Program. In 2007, the parties agreed to a "Corrective Action Order." In 2013, defendants moved to terminate a portion of the Order and associated consent decree paragraphs under Rule 60(b)(5). The district court granted the motion and plaintiffs appealed. Determining that plaintiffs have not forfeited their appeal, the court concluded that the district court properly terminated the portion of bullet points 8-10 concerning the completion of the four assessments at issue. The court relied on certain district court decisions to interpret the proper interpretation of "shortage" - which compares the provider-to-class-member ratio with the average client load of the relevant class of provider - and concluded that the district court erred in terminating the portion of bullet points 8-10 that orders defendants to develop plans to address “shortage[s]” identified by the assessments. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order in part and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the portion of the district court’s order terminating bullet points 6-7 and consent decree paragraph 93, and the court vacated the portion of the district court's order terminating the challenged sentence of bullet point 5. View "Frew v. Janek" on Justia Law

ATBS and its owner filed a First Amendment retaliation claim against the City of Jackson, alleging that the mayor, acting through city employees, ended support for a development project proposed by ATBS after Hewitt had made public statements claiming corruption in city government. The district court entered judgment as a matter of law (JML) to the city. The court concluded that the city council was the final policymaker with ultimate authority to approve (or reject) project funding. The mayor did not have final authority over individual funding decisions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Advanced Tech. Bldg. Solutions LLC. v. Jackson, Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Sergeant Cisneros and Officer Montelongo, among others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officers violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff participated in several demonstrations throughout the City of Houston that led to his detention and arrest by police officers. The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that Officer Montelongo is not entitled to qualified immunity because the genuine factual dispute identified by the court - whether plaintiff had entered the roadway - is not material to the determination of qualified immunity. Plaintiff's possession of his shofar independently provided reasonable suspicion for his detention. The court also concluded that the district court erred in denying qualified immunity to Sergeant Cisneros. In this case, neither of the remaining factual disputes identified by the district court - whether plaintiff complied with Sergeant Cisneros’ orders and whether plaintiff remained bound by Sergeant Cisneros’ prior orders - is material for determining whether Sergeant Cisneros is entitled to qualified immunity for his detention and subsequent arrest of plaintiff. Sergeant Cisneros had a lawful reason for detaining plaintiff independent of any potential failure to comply by plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the officers. View "Allen v. Cisneros" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a high school JROTC instructor, filed suit against the School Board and two school employees, alleging claims of retaliation under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733; 42 U.S.C. 1983; and state law. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's section 1983 and state law claims where plaintiff was not prejudiced because the suit was still in its infancy when defendants raised the time-bar defense. In this case, plaintiff had notice and opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss and he does not challenge the conclusion that his claims are time-barred. In regard to the FCA claim, plaintiff's primary theory of liability against the School Board is that the School Board's agents opposed plaintiff's protected actives and they used pretext to convince the Marine Corps to remove plaintiff from the school. Plaintiff also argued that the agents retaliated against him directly for engaging in protected activity, and that the School Board is liable for their conduct. The court concluded that plaintiff has pled enough facts to state a claim under this latter theory. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded as to the FCA claim. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Bias v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd." on Justia Law

This case arose from a New York Times article about Senator Rand Paul, which briefly quotes Walter Block, an economics professor. Block filed suit against defendants asserting claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. Although Block does not dispute that he made the statements at issue, he argues that the article takes the statements so far out of context as to make them untrue and defamatory. The district court granted a special motion to strike under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 971 (anti-SLAPP law), dismissed the complaint, and awarded defendants attorney's fees. In Lozovyy v. Kurtz, the court interpreted Louisiana law and concluded that “the Louisiana Supreme Court would recognize that Article 971’s ‘probability of success’ standard does not permit courts to weigh evidence, assess credibility, or resolve disputed issues of material fact.” Because the district court lacked the benefit of the court's recent guidance in Lozovyy, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to apply the standard. On remand, the district court should consider whether Block has established a genuine dispute of material fact on each element of his claims. View "Block v. New York Times Co." on Justia Law

Texas merchants filed suit challenging Texas’ Anti-Surcharge Law, Tex. Fin. Code 339.001. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied a preliminary injunction. Merchants claim that the law penalizes them for characterizing pricing as a “surcharge”, while at the same time not prohibiting a “discount” for non-credit-card transactions; and is unconstitutionally vague. Reviewing the parties’ claims de novo, and in the light of the States’ broad authority to regulate economic conduct, the court held that Texas’ law regulates conduct, not speech, and, therefore, does not implicate the First Amendment. Instead, the law ensures only that merchants do not impose an additional charge above the regular price for customers paying with credit cards. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rowell v. Pettijohn" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the enforcement of Louisiana’s statutory requirement that each physician who performs outpatient abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, The Unsafe Abortion Protection Act of 2014, La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 620 (H.B. 388). The district court held that the admitting-privileges requirement was facially unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the law against plaintiffs. Louisiana subsequently filed this emergency motion to stay the district court's preliminary injunction pending the resolution of Louisiana's appeal. The court granted the motion, concluding that Louisiana has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. In this case, Louisiana is likely to prevail in its argument that plaintiffs failed to establish an undue burden on women seeking abortions or that the Act creates a substantial obstacle in the path of a large fraction of women seeking an abortion. The court also concluded that Louisiana has made an adequate showing as to the remaining factors considered in determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal. View "June Medical Servs. v. Cald" on Justia Law

Marcus Cass was fatally shot by Officer Chris Smith during the execution of a warrant to collect certain business records. Plaintiffs, Cass's family members, filed suit against the City, along with Smith and the Chief of Police in their individual capacities, alleging retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and various Fourth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Smith and the Chief on the basis of qualified immunity. The court affirmed summary judgment as to the Chief because plaintiffs produced no summary judgment evidence that he was involved with the execution of the warrant or Cass’s death. Although a reasonable jury could find that the manner in which Smith executed the warrant was unconstitutional and neither the district court nor the parties has addressed whether the violation was clearly established in the law, the court affirmed summary judgment on plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim as it relates to the execution of the warrant because plaintiffs have not shown that Smith violated clearly established law. Finally, the court affirmed summary judgment on the remaining claims against Smith because plaintiffs failed to raise fact issues to support constitutional claims for retaliation or excessive force as it relates to Smith's shooting of Cass. View "Cass v. City of Abilene" on Justia Law