Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A 12-year-old boy was killed by police officers during an attempt to rescue him from a neighbor who had already killed the boy’s mother and housekeeper, gravely wounded his sister, and was holding the boy hostage in a vehicle. The officers responded to multiple 911 calls, surrounded the vehicle, and attempted to negotiate with the hostage-taker, who was armed and making threats against the child’s life. After the hostage-taker was shot and killed by an officer, other officers fired additional shots, which resulted in the boy’s death.The boy’s father, siblings, and estate filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the city, police department, and individual officers. They alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (excessive force), Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process), a Monell claim for failure to train, and state law claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, finding that the officers had not seized the boy for Fourth Amendment purposes, had not acted with deliberate indifference or intent to harm for Fourteenth Amendment purposes, and that the Monell claim failed in the absence of a constitutional violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the officers did not violate the boy’s Fourth Amendment rights because their actions during the active hostage situation did not constitute a seizure, and even if a violation had occurred, qualified immunity would apply as the right was not clearly established. The court also found no Fourteenth Amendment violation, as the officers’ actions did not shock the conscience or demonstrate deliberate indifference, and qualified immunity would apply. The Monell claim failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation. View "HAWATMEH V. CITY OF HENDERSON" on Justia Law

An armed fugitive fleeing law enforcement entered a print shop owned by the plaintiff, forcibly removed him, and barricaded himself inside. After a thirteen-hour standoff, Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers used dozens of tear gas canisters to subdue the fugitive, causing significant damage to the shop and its contents. The parties agreed that the officers’ actions were authorized, reasonable, and lawful. The plaintiff alleged that the damages, which exceeded $60,000, were caused exclusively by the police.The plaintiff initially sought compensation from the United States Marshals Service, which denied the claim and referred him to the City of Los Angeles. After the City did not respond to his claims or his attorney’s letter, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Takings Clause does not require compensation for property destroyed by police acting reasonably in an emergency. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the City’s initial motion but later granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the destruction was a valid exercise of police power and not a compensable taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the government’s destruction of private property, when necessary and reasonable for public safety, is exempt from the Takings Clause. The court relied on historical understanding and longstanding precedent, concluding that such actions fall outside the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. View "PENA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

A man with a prosthetic leg and wheelchair mobility visited a 7-Eleven store in California and encountered physical barriers that made access from the parking lot to the store entrance difficult. Specifically, the van-accessible parking was occupied, forcing him to park elsewhere and navigate a curb ramp with an excessive and uneven slope, which caused him difficulty and fatigue. After making a purchase, he filed suit against 7-Eleven under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination due to the store’s failure to remove architectural barriers where removal was readily achievable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held a bench trial. The court found that, during his visits, the plaintiff personally encountered several violations of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines related to the route from accessible parking to the store entrance. After the lawsuit was filed, 7-Eleven voluntarily remodeled the parking lot and entryway to comply with ADA standards, which mooted the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA. However, the court determined that a violation of the ADA also constituted a violation of the Unruh Act and awarded the plaintiff $4,000 in statutory damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Title III of the ADA requires removal of architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable, and that the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving removal is not readily achievable. The court found that 7-Eleven’s voluntary remediation demonstrated that removal was readily achievable. The court also held that a plaintiff who personally encounters an ADA violation while transacting with a business has standing under the Unruh Act, regardless of litigation motive or intent to be a customer. The case was remanded for issues related to the substitution of the plaintiff’s successors. View "GILBERT V. 7-ELEVEN, INC." on Justia Law

Isaac Contreras, a criminally committed patient at the Arizona State Hospital, was confined in an isolation cell for 665 days under the hospital’s “Administrative Separation” policy after a series of behavioral incidents. Emmanuel Walker, acting as Contreras’s guardian, filed suit in Arizona Superior Court against the State of Arizona and several officials, alleging that Contreras’s confinement violated his rights under both state and federal law. The complaint included two federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and five state law claims, including one under Arizona Revised Statutes § 36-516, which protects the rights of seriously mentally ill persons.After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona based on federal question jurisdiction, the State moved for judgment on the pleadings on the § 36-516 claim. The district court granted the motion, dismissing that claim, and did not enter partial judgment under Rule 54(b). To expedite appellate review of this dismissal, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all remaining claims, both state and federal, with prejudice. The district court then dismissed the entire case, and Walker appealed the dismissal of the state law claim.While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, which held that if a plaintiff eliminates all federal claims after removal, the federal court loses jurisdiction and must remand the case to state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a joint stipulation of dismissal functions the same as an amendment for jurisdictional purposes. The court concluded that the district court lost jurisdiction before entering final judgment and was required to remand the remaining state law claim to the Arizona Superior Court. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reopen and remand the state law claim. View "WALKER V. STATE OF ARIZONA" on Justia Law

A prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison was involved in a disputed physical altercation with two correctional officers. The prisoner alleged that the officers used excessive force against him, while the officers claimed the prisoner initiated the altercation. After the incident, the prisoner was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing and later filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Eighth Amendment violations. Over a year after the incident, the state charged the prisoner with battery and resisting an executive officer. The prisoner ultimately entered a nolo contendere plea to the resisting charge, expressing concern that the plea might affect his civil case.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially denied the officers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the prisoner’s nolo plea was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a). However, after a change in presiding judge, the court reconsidered and granted the officers’ motion, holding that the nolo plea could be considered and that the prisoner’s civil suit was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, because success in the civil suit would necessarily imply the invalidity of the criminal conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that, in a § 1983 action where the Heck bar is at issue, a plaintiff’s nolo contendere plea is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 410(a) to show that the plaintiff committed the charged crime. The court concluded that neither the plea nor statements made during the plea proceedings should have been admitted against the plaintiff in the civil case. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "KING V. VILLEGAS" on Justia Law

A group of more than 80 former at-will employees of a nonprofit healthcare system in Washington were terminated after refusing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination mandate issued by their employer, which was in response to an August 2021 proclamation by the state’s governor requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated. The employees alleged that, at the time, only an “investigational” vaccine authorized for emergency use was available, and they claimed their rights were violated when they were penalized for refusing it. They also argued they were not adequately informed of their right to refuse the vaccine.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington first dismissed all claims against the governor, then dismissed the federal claims against the healthcare system, and denied the employees’ motions for leave to amend and reconsideration. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the healthcare system.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that none of the employees’ statutory or non-constitutional claims, which were based on various federal statutes, regulations, agreements, and international treaties, alleged specific and definite rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court also found that the employees’ constitutional claims failed: the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho; the procedural due process claim failed because at-will employment is not a constitutionally protected property interest; and the equal protection claim failed because the mandate survived rational-basis review. The court further held that amendment of the federal claims would be futile and upheld the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims against the governor and its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the healthcare system. View "Curtis v. Inslee" on Justia Law

Jill Esche, who was seven months pregnant, was admitted to Renown Regional Medical Center in Nevada with severe hypertension and erratic behavior. Hospital staff, believing she was mentally ill and a danger to herself and her fetus, petitioned for her involuntary commitment under Nevada law. While the petition was pending, Esche was kept in the hospital, given psychiatric and medical treatment against her will, restricted from visitors and phone use, and not informed that a public defender had been appointed for her. After giving birth by C-section, the hospital decided to withdraw the commitment petition but allowed Esche to leave while she was still in fragile condition. She died outside near the hospital that night. Her estate and survivors sued the hospital and several staff members, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Nevada law.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the defendants on some claims, including unreasonable seizure and procedural due process claims, but denied summary judgment on others, such as substantive due process, conspiracy, and failure-to-train-or-supervise claims. The court also denied the defendants’ assertion of a good-faith defense to § 1983 liability, finding that the defense did not apply because the hospital was not required by law or directed by a public official to hold Esche involuntarily. Both sides appealed: the defendants challenged the denial of the good-faith defense, and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of other constitutional claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court’s denial of the good-faith defense was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, as the defense is a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit. The court dismissed both the defendants’ appeals and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Estate of Esche v. Bunuel-Jordana" on Justia Law

A woman alleged that a sheriff’s deputy in Okanogan County, Washington, coerced her into sexual encounters over several years, exploiting her drug addiction and involvement in criminal activity. She claimed that the deputy’s misconduct began in 2014 and continued through 2021, with the deputy using his position to pressure her into unwanted sexual acts in exchange for not pursuing criminal charges against her. The woman also alleged that the sheriff’s office was aware of the deputy’s behavior but failed to take effective action, and that similar misconduct occurred with other deputies and vulnerable women.After the woman filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that her claims were barred by Washington’s three-year statute of limitations. The district court agreed, holding that her claims were untimely and that her allegations did not sufficiently support municipal liability under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services. The court dismissed her claims with prejudice and denied her request to amend her complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that each alleged act of sexual misconduct constituted a discrete, independently wrongful act for statute of limitations purposes, so claims based on acts within three years of the complaint were timely. For earlier acts, the court found that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a delayed accrual theory, given the power imbalance and her delayed realization of harm. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the Monell claim, as the plaintiff alleged facts supporting a pattern of deliberate indifference. The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of both federal and state law claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "ST. CLAIR V. COUNTY OF OKANOGAN" on Justia Law

A hospital employee in Oregon, who identified as a practicing Christian, requested a religious exemption from her employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her belief that her body is a temple of the Holy Spirit and that she must avoid substances that could harm her body. The employer granted her exemption from vaccination but required her to wear personal protective equipment and undergo weekly antigen testing using a nasal swab treated with ethylene oxide. The employee objected to the testing, claiming her research showed the swab was carcinogenic and that using it would violate her religious duty to protect her body. She requested alternative accommodations, such as saliva testing or full-time remote work, but the employer denied these requests and ultimately terminated her employment when she refused to comply.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that her objection to the testing was based on secular, medical concerns rather than a bona fide religious belief. The court concluded that while her general belief in protecting her body as a temple was religious, her specific objection to the nasal swab was rooted in her personal interpretation of medical research.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that to state a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII and Oregon law, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the specific accommodation request is rooted in a bona fide religious belief, not merely a secular or personal preference. The court found that the employee’s complaint did not sufficiently connect her religious beliefs to her objection to antigen testing, as her concerns were based on her own medical judgment rather than religious doctrine. The court declined to adopt a more lenient pleading standard and affirmed the dismissal with prejudice. View "DETWILER V. MID-COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER" on Justia Law

Two police officers responded to a domestic battery call at a residential home. While one officer spoke with a woman at the door, the other saw a person flee over a backyard wall into a neighboring yard. Instead of immediately pursuing, the officer returned to his car, called for backup, and drove to establish a perimeter. Eighteen minutes later, a K-9 unit arrived and began searching within the perimeter. The K-9 alerted toward the plaintiffs’ backyard, which was locked and posted with a “Beware of Dog” sign. Without a warrant or consent, officers entered the backyard. The plaintiffs’ three dogs were roused, and two of them attacked the police K-9. One officer shot and killed the two dogs. The suspect was never found.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment to the officers and the City of North Las Vegas, finding the officers’ entry justified under the “hot pursuit” exception to the warrant requirement and the use of force against the dogs reasonable. The court also granted summary judgment to the City on the plaintiffs’ Monell claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim after dismissing the federal claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the “hot pursuit” exception did not apply because the officers lost track of the suspect for eighteen minutes, breaking the continuity required for exigent circumstances. Therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless search. However, the court affirmed qualified immunity for the officer’s use of force against the dogs, finding no clearly established law prohibiting his actions in the spontaneous circumstances. The court also affirmed summary judgment for the City on the Monell claims, finding insufficient evidence of a policy or deliberate indifference. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "JONES V. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS" on Justia Law