Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

William Carter, a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, was arrested for unauthorized use of 911 and spent eight days in the Shreveport City Jail. During his incarceration, Carter, who had pre-existing bedsores, did not receive adequate medical care for his wounds, which allegedly led to their infection and his subsequent hospitalization. Carter's mother, suing on his behalf, filed claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Louisiana state negligence law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana excluded the expert testimony of Dr. Joel Nitzkin before trial. After a jury trial, the court granted the defendants' Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ADA/RA claim, concluding that the claim was about medical treatment rather than an actionable disability claim. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the § 1983 and state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the ADA/RA claim amounted to a complaint about medical negligence, which is not actionable under the ADA. The court found that the failure to change Carter's bandages was a medical treatment issue, not a failure to accommodate under the ADA. Additionally, the court held that Carter's placement in a segregated cell for his safety did not constitute intentional discrimination under the ADA. The court also did not address the exclusion of Dr. Nitzkin's testimony, as it was only relevant to the ADA claims, which failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Carter v. City of Shreveport" on Justia Law

M.K., a minor, enrolled in the Pearl River County School District after being homeschooled. During his sixth-grade year, he was bullied by boys in four of his classes, who called him names like "gay." In October, M.K. exposed his genitals to one of the boys in a restroom, claiming it was either accidental or an attempt to prove he was not "gay." The District suspended M.K. and required him to attend an alternative school for six weeks, which he refused, considering it akin to a prison. M.K., through his father, sued the District and others, alleging deliberate-indifference sex-discrimination under Title IX.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of the District, concluding that Title IX does not cover sexual-orientation discrimination and that the alleged behavior was not severe enough to be actionable. M.K. appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the student behavior M.K. experienced, while mean-spirited, did not meet the Supreme Court's stringent standard for "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" conduct required for a Title IX claim. The court emphasized that the behavior M.K. described, such as name-calling and teasing, is common in schools and does not rise to the level of actionable harassment under Title IX. The court concluded that M.K.'s experiences, though unfortunate, were not sufficient to sustain his Title IX claim against the District. View "M.K. v. Pearl River County School District" on Justia Law

In May 2018, Raynaldo Sampy Jr. was arrested by seven officers from the Lafayette Police Department after driving into an ice cooler. During the arrest, Sampy was forcibly removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, and bent over a police car. He kicked Officer Rabb while being restrained, leading to his conviction for battery of a police officer in Lafayette City Court. Sampy later filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force by the officers and retaliation for his speech.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana dismissed Sampy’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, Fourth Amendment bystander liability claim, and First Amendment retaliation claim under Heck v. Humphrey, which bars claims that would imply the invalidity of a conviction. The court did not dismiss a claim regarding a third instance of alleged excessive force, which went to trial, and the jury found for the defendants. Sampy appealed the dismissal of the initial two uses of force.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The court held that Sampy’s excessive force claims were barred by Heck because they were not temporally and conceptually distinct from his battery conviction. The court found that the facts in Sampy’s complaint were inconsistent with those adjudicated in the criminal case. The court also held that Sampy’s bystander liability and First Amendment retaliation claims were barred by Heck. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Sampy v. Rabb" on Justia Law

Jose E. Amstutz, a police officer employed by Harris County Precinct 6, was terminated after his wife filed a police report alleging domestic abuse. Amstutz was placed on leave and later terminated following an internal investigation that found he violated several policies. Amstutz claimed his wife had a history of making false allegations and had informed his supervisors about this potential. After his termination, Amstutz struggled to find other law enforcement employment, which he attributed to the General Discharge noted in his F-5 report.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Amstutz’s Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for not responding to the timeliness challenge. The court also dismissed his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, finding that he had not pleaded a protected property interest in his at-will employment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the ADEA claims, agreeing that Amstutz failed to address the timeliness challenge, thus waiving opposition to that argument. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims, concluding that Amstutz did not identify any independent source of law that would create a property interest in his employment. The court found that Amstutz’s employment was at-will and that he did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment. Consequently, the court also dismissed Amstutz’s Monell claim against Harris County, as there was no underlying constitutional violation. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of leave to amend, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Amstutz v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Deputy Jose Nunez of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call about a possible home invasion. Upon arrival, he encountered Stephen Benavides, the homeowner’s father, at the front door. Nunez shot Benavides, who was unarmed, claiming the firearm discharged accidentally while switching hands. Benavides sued Nunez for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case. Nunez sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity, arguing the shooting was accidental. The district court denied the motion, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the shooting was intentional or accidental. The court held that if the shooting was intentional, it would be objectively unreasonable and violate clearly established law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s determination of a genuine factual dispute in an interlocutory appeal. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that it could only review the materiality, not the genuineness, of the factual dispute. Since Nunez’s appeal challenged the genuineness of the factual dispute, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded for a jury to resolve the factual dispute and determine the issue of qualified immunity. View "Benavides v. Nunez" on Justia Law

In this case, the families of Michael Jackson, Carl Wiley, Jr., and Rashad Henderson, who were killed during high-speed police chases in Houston, Texas, sued the City of Houston. They alleged that the Houston Police Department (HPD) has a policy of racial profiling that leads to more high-speed chases in predominantly black neighborhoods, resulting in the deaths of their loved ones. The plaintiffs brought several federal municipal liability claims, including violations of equal protection, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and substantive due process, as well as state tort claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted in part and denied in part Houston's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for judgment on the pleadings. The court dismissed all claims except the equal protection claims and Jackson’s state law claims. Houston then filed an interlocutory appeal, raising issues regarding standing, failure to state federal claims, capacity to sue, and governmental immunity for Jackson’s state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review non-final district court orders except under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court found that it could only review whether the plaintiffs had standing to assert their equal protection claims. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their injuries did not stem from unequal treatment based on race. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s order regarding standing for the equal protection claims and vacated the district court’s decision on governmental immunity for Jackson’s negligence claim, remanding the case for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), challenged the University of Texas at Austin (UT) for its admissions policies, alleging they violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI by considering race as a factor. After the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, UT revised its admissions policy to exclude race as a factor but allowed admissions officers access to applicants' racial data. SFFA claimed this access still constituted a violation and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed all claims as moot, reasoning that UT's policy changes addressed the issues raised by SFFA. The district court concluded that the claims related to the old policy were moot and that the new policy did not violate the law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed that claims related to UT's pre-Harvard policy were moot because the policy had been repealed and could not reasonably be expected to recur. However, the court found that claims related to UT's post-Harvard policy were not moot. The court noted that admissions officers' access to racial data could still potentially allow for racial discrimination, thus maintaining a live controversy.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that SFFA's claims regarding the revised admissions policy remained live and required further examination to determine if the policy was a subterfuge for continued race discrimination. View "Students for Fair Admissions v. University of Texas Austin" on Justia Law

Ronnie Alexander was arrested and detained in Henderson County Jail while awaiting trial. He falsely informed jail officials that he was suicidal to be transferred out of the group holding cell. Consequently, he was moved to the jail's suicide-prevention cell, known as the "violent cell," which lacked basic amenities such as a toilet, running water, or bedding, and had lights on at all hours. Alexander was housed there for five days before being released. He subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the conditions of his confinement and the adequacy of the jail's mental health services.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the defendants' motions to dismiss Alexander's federal and state-law claims. The court found that Alexander failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Taft defendants, Henderson County, and the correctional officers. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Alexander's remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the conditions of the violent cell were reasonably related to the legitimate governmental interest of protecting suicidal inmates from self-harm. The court found that the conditions, although harsh, were not punitive and did not violate Alexander's constitutional rights. The court also determined that the mental health care provided to Alexander met the constitutional minimum required, and there was no deliberate indifference by the Taft defendants or the county. Consequently, Alexander's claims were dismissed. View "Alexander v. Taft" on Justia Law

Detective Genaro Hernandez, a Dallas Police Department detective, was involved in a shooting investigation outside The Green Elephant bar in August 2019. Hernandez, who also worked for the Stainback Organization, allegedly pursued false charges against the bar's owner, Shannon McKinnon, and a security guard, Guadalupe Frias, to benefit his private employer. Despite the Special Investigation Unit finding no criminal offense by the plaintiffs, Hernandez bypassed standard procedures and directly sought prosecution from the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, leading to the plaintiffs' indictment for tampering with evidence. The charges were later dropped when Hernandez's conflict of interest was revealed during Frias's trial.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Hernandez, alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and state-law claims for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and civil conspiracy. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the federal malicious-prosecution claim but allowed the federal false-arrest claim and the state-law claims to proceed. Hernandez appealed, arguing he was entitled to governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Hernandez's actions, despite being motivated by personal interests, fell within the scope of his employment as a detective. The court held that Texas law provides broad immunity to state actors for actions within their employment scope, regardless of intent. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision denying dismissal of the state-law claims and remanded the case for further proceedings on the remaining federal claim. View "Frias v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Officer Alexandra Weaver took a fourteen-year-old child, J.M., from her home during a child welfare investigation. The child and her parents sued, claiming Weaver searched the apartment and seized the child in violation of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Weaver appealed the district court’s order denying her motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity and denied summary judgment on three claims: the Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable search of the apartment, J.M.’s Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure, and the Fourteenth Amendment claim for procedural due process. Weaver then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the warrantless search of the apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances, and no other exception applied. The court also found that J.M. was seized without a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances, violating her Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, the court held that the procedural due process claim was valid because J.M. was seized without a court order or exigent circumstances, and this violation was clearly established by precedent.The Fifth Circuit concluded that Weaver was not entitled to qualified immunity on any of the claims and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment. View "McMurry v. Weaver" on Justia Law