Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2018, the plaintiff contacted police to help resolve a dispute at her home involving her adult children. After officers arrived and de-escalated the situation, a third officer arrived, and a disagreement between the plaintiff and this officer led to her arrest. She was charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assault and battery on a police officer. Rather than pleading guilty or going to trial, the plaintiff entered into an agreement under Massachusetts law for three months of pretrial probation, with the understanding that the charges would be dismissed upon successful completion. She did not admit to any wrongdoing or facts, and after completing probation, the charges were dismissed.The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in state court against the City of Springfield and several police officers, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including excessive force during her arrest. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine established in Heck v. Humphrey, which prevents § 1983 claims that would impugn a valid criminal judgment. The district court denied summary judgment on this ground for two officers, holding that the Heck bar did not apply because the plaintiff was not convicted.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the Heck bar does not apply when there is no underlying criminal conviction or sentence. Because the plaintiff’s charges were dismissed after pretrial probation without any admission of guilt or factual findings, her § 1983 claims could proceed. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Aprileo v. Clapprood" on Justia Law

While awaiting resentencing on federal charges, an individual was detained at the Donald W. Wyatt Detention Facility in Rhode Island. During his approximately seventeen-month confinement, he, a Sunni Muslim, communicated with facility officials about his religious needs, including requests to hold congregational prayer and access religious programming and property. He alleges that officials responded with harassment, denied his requests for religious services, and ultimately transferred him to another facility in retaliation for his complaints.He filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the facility’s warden and three unknown officials, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing they were not acting under color of state law but rather federal law, and thus were not subject to suit under § 1983. The district court granted the motion, relying on a prior district court decision that held officials at Wyatt act under color of federal law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the facility’s statutory creation and governance, noting that the Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation, a municipal entity, owns and operates Wyatt. The court found that, although the facility houses federal detainees under contract, it remains a municipal institution and its employees are municipal actors. The First Circuit held that the complaint plausibly alleged action under color of state law, making the defendants potentially liable under § 1983. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wright v. Martin" on Justia Law

Giovanni Irizarry Sierra worked as an Attorney Advisor for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Puerto Rico and was terminated in March 2019 for unsatisfactory performance. He subsequently filed a complaint with the SSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO), alleging that his termination was the result of discrimination and retaliation. The OCREO reorganized his allegations, dismissing one as untimely and bifurcating the remainder into pre-termination and termination discrimination claims. The termination claim was treated as a “mixed case” because it involved both discrimination and an adverse personnel action.After receiving a report of investigation, Irizarry requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ dismissed the termination claim for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that mixed cases must proceed through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), not the EEOC. Irizarry then appealed his termination claim to the MSPB, which sustained his removal and notified him that he had thirty days from the final decision to seek judicial review in federal district court. Irizarry did not file within that period. Later, the OCREO erroneously issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) on the termination claim, which was subsequently rescinded.Irizarry filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, relying on the rescinded FAD. The SSA moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was untimely and the FAD was issued in error. The district court granted the motion, finding the claims time-barred and rejecting Irizarry’s arguments for equitable tolling and estoppel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Irizarry’s claim was untimely because he failed to file within thirty days of the MSPB’s final decision, and equitable relief was not warranted. View "Irizarry Sierra v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

Residents and the municipality of Morovis, Puerto Rico, brought suit against the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) and its officials, alleging that for years, Morovis has suffered from a severe water crisis, with many residents lacking water service on most days. The plaintiffs, all PRASA subscribers, claimed that despite repeated notifications and proposed solutions—including a report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—PRASA failed to address the crisis. They alleged that sometimes the outages could be resolved by simply turning on pumps or generators, and that PRASA officials were aware of the situation but did little to provide alternative water sources or adjust billing. The plaintiffs also recounted incidents suggesting deliberate inaction or sabotage by PRASA employees.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the case in its entirety at the pleading stage, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of “shocking the conscience,” and also held that the plaintiffs’ contracts with PRASA could not form the basis of a substantive due process claim. The court did not decide whether Puerto Rico law created a protected property interest in water service.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the substantive due process claim. The First Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged government conduct that could shock the conscience, particularly under a deliberate indifference standard, given the prolonged and severe deprivation of water. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, leaving unresolved whether a protected property interest exists and whether qualified immunity applies. View "Maldonado-Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

A man experiencing a mental health crisis was fatally shot by police officers in his Newton, Massachusetts apartment building after a report of an attempted armed robbery at a nearby candy store. When officers arrived, the man, holding a kitchen knife, fled into his apartment building. Officers pursued him to the third floor, where he threatened self-harm and engaged in erratic behavior. Police attempted to negotiate with him for about twenty minutes, eventually convincing him to drop the knife and a fire extinguisher. As officers prepared to incapacitate him with a beanbag shotgun, the weapon malfunctioned. Some officers reported that the man then picked up the knife and moved toward them, prompting two officers to fire their sidearms, resulting in his death.The decedent’s parents, acting as representatives of his estate, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the City of Newton and several police officers. They alleged excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, and various state law claims. The district court dismissed all claims, finding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded municipal liability or viable claims under the ADA or state law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims except the § 1983 excessive force claim against the officers related to the fatal shooting. The court held that, at the pleading stage, there were disputed material facts regarding whether the decedent was armed and posed an immediate threat when lethal force was used. The judgment was vacated as to this claim and remanded for further proceedings; all other dismissals were affirmed. View "Conlon v. Scaltreto" on Justia Law

During the 2023–2024 academic year, students at a private university in Massachusetts engaged in a series of pro-Palestinian protests following violence in the Middle East. The protests included rallies, walkouts, chalk messages, and an encampment near the campus Hillel center. Some Jewish and Israeli students reported feeling unsafe or unwelcome, and a few specific incidents were alleged, such as being blocked from campus areas or subjected to hostile remarks. The university responded by revising protest policies, suspending student groups, and eventually clearing the encampment, but did not discipline all protestors or end the demonstrations immediately.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, which alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Ku Klux Klan Act, and state law, for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged actionable harassment or that the university was deliberately indifferent to any such harassment. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The First Circuit held that most of the protestors’ conduct constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and did not amount to actionable harassment under Title VI. The court further found that the university was not deliberately indifferent, as it took a series of escalating actions in response to the protests. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Ku Klux Klan Act because they did not plausibly allege a conspiracy with the purpose of depriving Jewish or Israeli students of their rights. The dismissal of the state-law claims was affirmed, and the court found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend the complaint. View "StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. MIT" on Justia Law

Brandon Velez was stopped by Manchester, New Hampshire police officers for vehicle equipment violations. After parking near his residence, Velez did not immediately comply with officers’ orders to exit his car. When he verbally refused and reached for his phone, officers attempted to physically remove him, leading to a struggle. During the altercation, one officer struck Velez multiple times and tased him twice. Velez was arrested and charged with misdemeanors and a traffic violation, ultimately pleading guilty only to the traffic violation. He later sued the officers and the City of Manchester, alleging wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, excessive force, assault and battery, and failure to train.The case was removed from state court to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding that the officers had probable cause for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive. Velez appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment order de novo. The appellate court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest Velez for resisting detention under New Hampshire law, defeating his wrongful arrest and false imprisonment claims. The court also found that, although one officer’s use of force was excessive under the Fourth Amendment, qualified immunity shielded the officer from liability because the law was not clearly established in the specific context. The court further held that Velez’s state-law assault and battery claim failed under the same immunity standard, and that his claims against the City for failure to train were unsupported by evidence of a municipal policy or deliberate indifference. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts. View "Velez v. Eutzy" on Justia Law

Robert Miller died at his home in Cape Cod in 2019 following an encounter with Barnstable police officers Sean Roycroft and Spencer Jackson. The officers responded to a 911 call from Miller’s girlfriend, who requested a psychiatric evaluation but did not report any crime. Upon arrival, a struggle ensued as the officers attempted to handcuff Miller, who ended up face-down on the floor with Roycroft’s arm pinned beneath him. During the struggle, Jackson delivered two punches to Miller in an effort to facilitate handcuffing. Miller’s girlfriend witnessed one of the officers drive a knee into Miller’s back and heard Miller say, “I can’t breathe” and “Amy, help me.” After Miller was handcuffed, he became unresponsive and was later pronounced dead. The medical examiner attributed the death to cardiac dysrhythmia in the setting of excited delirium, while the plaintiff’s expert opined that Miller died from prone restraint cardiac arrest due to pressure on his back.The plaintiff, Miller’s son, brought a federal excessive force claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. After discovery, the officers moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district judge denied summary judgment, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the officers used excessive force, particularly after Roycroft freed his arm and Miller was restrained. The judge concluded that clearly established law prohibited kneeling on a restrained person’s back and that a reasonable jury could find the officers’ conduct violated Miller’s constitutional rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the officers’ conduct while Roycroft’s arm was pinned (Phase One), affirmed the denial for conduct after Miller was restrained and a knee was placed on his back (Phase Two), and dismissed the appeal in part for fact-based arguments not suitable for interlocutory review. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Miller v. Roycroft" on Justia Law

Two brothers with developmental disabilities, Gaven and Jared, live with their parents, who are certified to provide in-home care. Both brothers qualified for Maine’s “Single Member Services,” which would allow each to receive one-on-one care from a designated provider. The family requested that each parent be reimbursed for providing care to one brother. However, the Maine Department of Health and Human Services determined that, because the brothers lived together, they were only eligible for “Two Member Services,” meaning a single provider would be reimbursed to care for both, at half the total rate. The parents continued to provide one-on-one care to both brothers, but were only reimbursed for one provider, resulting in a significant financial shortfall.The family challenged this determination in Maine Superior Court, which ruled in their favor, finding that the Department’s interpretation of its rules was arbitrary and inconsistent with its policies. Following this decision, the Department began reimbursing both parents for providing one-on-one care. The family then filed a federal lawsuit seeking damages for the period before the state court’s ruling, alleging discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the case, holding that the Department was protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The First Circuit held that the Department was not entitled to sovereign immunity because Congress validly abrogated such immunity under Title II of the ADA in this context. The court found that the Department’s policy violated the brothers’ equal protection rights, as there was no rational basis for providing reduced services solely because the brothers lived together. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McKenna v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

A police officer with the Cambridge Police Department, who had served in both patrol and special investigations roles, posted a comment on his personal Facebook page criticizing the naming of a federal police reform bill after George Floyd. In his post, he referred to Floyd as a "career criminal, a thief and druggie," and expressed pessimism about the country's future. The post was made from home, visible only to his Facebook friends, but was quickly screenshotted and shared with community members, including the local NAACP. The police commissioner was alerted, and the department initiated an internal investigation. The officer was placed on administrative leave and, after the investigation concluded that his post violated department policies on courtesy and professionalism, he was suspended without pay for four days.The officer filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging that his suspension was unconstitutional retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the department, finding that the department’s interest in maintaining public trust and effective service outweighed the officer’s and the public’s interest in his speech, particularly given the context of heightened scrutiny and protest following George Floyd’s death.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision de novo. The First Circuit held that, while the officer’s speech addressed a matter of public concern, its mocking and disparaging nature diminished its First Amendment value. The court further held that the department’s prediction that the post could undermine public trust was reasonable, especially in the context of ongoing public unrest and the department’s need to maintain community confidence. The court found no evidence of impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the department. View "Hussey v. City of Cambridge" on Justia Law