Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Haines operates a tour bus company. In 2000, he modified the luggage compartment in a bus to become a sleeper area, designed to comply with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. In May, 2011, FMCSA informed Haines that he could use the luggage compartment as a sleeper area without additional approval if he complied with 49 C.F.R. 393.76. On May 29, 2011, Haines permitted family members to ride in the sleeper area while the bus was in motion. An unidentified individual notified authorities. On June 10, FMCSA placed all of Haines’ busses, including three without sleeper areas, out of service, and identified Haines Tours as an “imminent hazard” to public safety based on its finding that the “unauthorized transportation of passengers in the cargo area . . . substantially increase[d] the likelihood of serious injury or death.” The suspension lasted five days. Haines sued, alleging that the handling of the temporary suspension violated his due process and equal protection rights and gave rise to a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal without leave to amend; “Bivens” claims were time-barred by Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations and a Bivens remedy was not available because Haines had an adequate, alternative remedy. View "Haines v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin." on Justia Law

Landrum was convicted of aggravated burglary and aggravated murder for breaking into 84-year-old White’s apartment and killing him in 1985. The jury found two death penalty specifications: Landrum committed aggravated murder to escape detection for committing burglary, and Landrum was the principal offender in an aggravated murder. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Landrum unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief in 1996. The Ohio Supreme Court denied further review. In 1998, Landrum applied to reopen his appeal under Ohio Rule 26(B). The Ohio Court of Appeals denied relief, finding that Landrum failed to show good cause for delaying his application; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. Landrum sought federal habeas relief, arguing that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce testimony that his co-defendant had confessed to cutting White’s throat. The court granted a conditional writ, finding that Landrum did not procedurally default that claim because Rule 26(B) was not firmly established and regularly followed in Ohio capital cases. The Sixth Circuit reversed. In 2012, Landrum filed an FRCP 60(b)(6) motion, arguing that ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel excused the procedural default of his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the confession claim. The district court denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding Landrum did not present a “substantial claim” of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Landrum v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In 2010, plaintiff started work at defendant’s Murfreesboro plant and was informed about the company’s sexual harassment policy. Plaintiff observed Leonard “come up behind” another man, “grab[] him in the butt,” and then sniff his finger. Twice, Leonard came up behind plaintiff and touched him inappropriately; both times plaintiff warned him. A month later, Leonard came up behind him again, “grabbed [him] by [the] hips and started hunching on [him]” so that Leonard’s “privates” were “up against [Plaintiff’s] tail.” Plaintiff confronted Leonard, then reported the incident. Although there had been other incidents, Leonard was suspended for two days and given a form, stating, “No contact with any employees that would be interpreted as sexual harassment.” Plaintiff did not return to work. He suffered anxiety attacks. His short-term disability insurance ran out. Plaintiff’s licensed clinical social worker diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder. Leonard was fired after he admitted in a deposition that he had “mooned” or touched other men in the workplace. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging sexual harassment, wrongful termination, and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and hostile work environment and constructive discharge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2. The court granted partial summary judgment, rejecting the retaliation and constructive discharge claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and award of $300,000 on his Title VII claim. View "Smith v. Rock-Tenn Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Martin, Kentucky Mayor Thomasine Robinson, sought reelection. Her challenger, Howell, won by three votes. Husband James confronted and threatened to kill Howell; he was convicted in state court of terroristic threatening and menacing. Thomasine was charged with bribery, coercion, and intimidation. Testimony indicated that: Thomasine gave a woman $20 to vote for her and coerced voters to vote for her by absentee ballot; that her son Steven attempted to intimidate a voter; that James paid $10 for a vote; and that James gave an individual money with which to purchase votes. The jury returned a guilty verdict on conspiracy and vote-buying (52 U.S.C. 10307(c)) charges, but the court granted James acquittal on the conspiracy charge. Thomasine was convicted of vote-buying and conspiracy to violate civil rights (18 U.S.C. 241); Steven was found guilty of conspiracy and two counts of vote-buying, but acquitted of a third count. The court assessed a leadership enhancement to James for directing another to purchase votes and an obstruction of justice enhancement for behaving menacingly during a trial recess and sentenced him to an above-guidelines 40 months in prison. Steven was sentenced to 21 months and three years of supervised release, with a condition requiring him to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. Thomasine was sentenced to 33 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Cleveland officers Kazimer and Crisan drove to an apartment complex to investigate a sighting of armed-robbery suspects. Seeing someone who matched the description, they gave chase. A resident slowed Kazimer, knowing the officer was chasing 16-year-old Juan, and told Kazimer about Juan’s disability, Down Syndrome. “Shut up, get out of my way,” Kazmier responded. Juan stopped running at the parking lot, where his family was waiting. Kazimer, who arrived seconds later, admits that he saw Juan “surrendering.” According to witnesses, Kazimer “grabbed Juan from behind, forcefully pulled him from his mother’s arms, and slammed him very hard into [a] vehicle.” He handcuffed Juan and used his 205-pound weight, twice Juan’s weight, “to pin Juan against the hot vehicle.” Juan was not resisting and was crying in pain. Kazimer reportedly kept Juan pinned 15 minutes, telling Juan’s parents that they were “lucky he didn’t shoot.” Crisan did nothing—except, according to witnesses, hurl racial slurs. When police dispatch radioed that the robbers had been apprehended, they released Juan. Juan allegedly suffered chest pains, abrasions, posttraumatic stress, and other medical complications. The court denied the officers’ qualified immunity motion with respect to Juan’s excessive-force claims and some state-law claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that the claims must go to a jury. View "Ortiz v. Kazimer" on Justia Law

In 2009-2010, eight tenants were evicted from their respective homes for alleged violations of the Lansing Housing and Premises Code. Each eviction followed an inspection of the buildings conducted in conjunction with criminal drug investigations. Each inspector summarized his findings in an eviction “red-tag” notice form, which he gave to the tenant; none of the red-tags provided any information regarding the right to appeal and have an administrative hearing. Each stated: “You must contact the undersigned, no later than ... to set up an appointment to meet at the structure (to verify that all corrections have been completed) or to acquire an authorized extension. Before the re-inspection you must obtain all required permits and have those repairs inspected .... If you have any questions or concerns about complying within the time indicated, you may contact ….” None of the tenants filed an appeal within the 20-day period prescribed by the code. They later filed suit. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the Inspectors’ qualified immunity defense with respect to the constitutional adequacy of the notice. Sixth Circuit precedent did not clearly establish that a notice of eviction must include a direct explanation of the post-deprivation appeals process. View "Gardner v. Evans" on Justia Law

Eaton sought custody of his infant son, claiming that the child’s mother would endanger the child’s safety. The mother responded that Eaton had substance abuse issues. The court ordered both to undergo testing at Lexington's Community Alternative Program. The mother’s results were clean. Eaton tested positive for cocaine and opiates. The court ordered additional testing. Eaton took around 120 urine tests through the program. He tested positive for drugs at least 10 times and for alcohol at least 20 times. He unsuccessfully moved to strike the results as inaccurate. Several times, Eaton gave a sample at both the community program and an alternative site on the same day. He tested positive in four drug tests and one alcohol test. Apparently, the two sites' results never conflicted. The court granted sole custody to the mother. Eaton filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging that tests at the community program violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that the program “fail[ed] to use adequate procedures to allow for reasonable reliability of the test results.” The district court dismissed claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because they interfered with ongoing state litigation and stayed the damages claims, but later granted Lexington summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Eaton did not offer sufficient evidence to support his claim. View "Eaton v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty." on Justia Law

In 2011, Asakevich pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and attempting to entice a minor via the internet, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b). The district court sentenced Asakevich to life in prison. The Sixth Circuit dismissed his appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Asakevich’s petition for a writ of certiorari on October 7, 2013, so that Asakevich’s conviction became final. He had one year to file a motion to vacate his sentence, 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(1). Asakevich has not filed a section 2255 motion. On October 6, 2014, Asakevich filed a pro se “Motion for Extension of Time to File 28 U.S.C. 2255 Motion,” seeking pre-approval for a 90-day extension. The district court denied Asakevich’s motion, reasoning that there was no published authority for enlarging the time for filing a section 2255 motion before the statute of limitations expires. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Federal courts do not lightly grant relief in non-existent cases or offer advisory opinions about what they might do if an action were filed. Asakevich requested an advisory opinion about whether he could obtain an extension for an action not yet in existence and one that may never come into existence. View "United States v. Asakevich" on Justia Law

Three special-education students claimed that Kowalski abused her students during the 2003–2004 school year by, among other things, gagging one student with a bandana to stop him from spitting, strapping another to a toilet to keep her from falling from the toilet, and forcing another to sit with her pants down on a training toilet in full view of her classmates to assist her with toilet-training. They alleged that Kowalski’s supervisors were deliberately indifferent to this alleged abuse, and that North Point created an environment primed for abuse by its adoption of allegedly unconstitutional policies and practices. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants in the suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, because Kowalski’s instructional techniques, while inappropriate and even “abusive,” did not rise to the conscience-shocking level required of a substantive due process claim; because Kowalski’s supervisors had insufficient notice of her actions to be found deliberately indifferent; and because North Point’s policies and practices were not constitutionally inadequate. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, stating that, as a matter of law, Kowalski’s conduct did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. View "Domingo v. Kowalski" on Justia Law

Kent’s parents, Rick and Pamela, were visiting Kent's family. Kent’s father had suffered serious health problems for years; he spent most of his visit in bed. One morning, Kent, a physician, found his father unresponsive, but breathing. Rick had executed a living will and did not want life-sustaining procedures. Kent made his father comfortable. At 7:08 p.m., Kent determined that his father had died. Firefighter-EMT Oryszczak arrived and examined the body. Kent stated that he was a physician and that his father had passed away about 15 minutes earlier. Deputy Lopez arrived. Pamela stated that she did not have power-of-attorney paperwork with her. Oryszczak explained that without paperwork, protocol required them to “do everything.” Kent began yelling and gesturing. Oryszczak asked for assistance, stating that he was afraid of Kent intervening. Kent told deputies that “they were not going to assault my dead father in my home.” Lopez pulled out his taser. Kent undisputedly said, “Go ahead and Taze me” Lopez deployed the taser. The prongs struck Kent and he fell. Kent remained handcuffed, with the taser probes attached, during 15-20 minutes of questioning. Kent sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court denied defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants felt they were faced with an emergency, whether they thought they had a legal obligation to attempt resuscitation, and whether Kent was non-compliant, and that case law clearly established that using a taser on an individual who was not under arrest, posed no safety threat, made no threats, and was not physically resistant, constituted excessive force. View "Kent v. County of Oakland" on Justia Law