Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

When Michigan police officers arrested Bachynski on suspicion of murder, she invoked her right to remain silent and asked for an attorney. During later interactions between the officers and Bachynski, she changed her mind, eventually pointing to a detective and saying: “I want to talk to you.” She then waived her Miranda rights three times and confessed three times to a slew of crimes, including murder. A jury convicted her, and the state courts upheld the conviction over challenges to her confession. The federal district court granted her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the detectives impermissibly interrogated her without an attorney present. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the state courts reasonably construed the Supreme Court’s holdings in this area. Ample evidence rebutted showed that Bachynski voluntarily and knowingly waived her Miranda rights and there was ample, admissible evidence of her guilt even without the confession. View "Bachynski v. Stewart" on Justia Law

A family member reported to Michigan Children’s Protective Services (CPS) that Barber was neglecting J.B. Miller, a CPS social worker, interviewed J.B. at his public elementary school without a court order or Barber’s consent. Miller interviewed Barber, who defended his marijuana and prescription-drug use as medically authorized. Days later, Miller again interviewed J.B. at school without a court order or parental consent and spoke with J.B.’s paternal grandmother. Miller obtained a court order, placing J.B. in protective custody pending a hearing, Mich. Comp. Laws 722.638, and picked J.B. up from school. After a hearing, the judge found probable cause to support the petition, but returned J.B. to Barber’s custody conditioned on: Barber’s abstaining from marijuana, submitting to drug screening, and ensuring that J.B. has constant adult supervision. Barber sued Miller under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating his substantive due process rights by interviewing J.B. without a court order or parental consent; falsehoods in the petition; and removing J.B. from school, and challenged the statute as facially unconstitutional. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal on grounds of absolute and qualified immunity and found that Barber lacked standing for his constitutional challenge to the statute. View "Barber v. Miller" on Justia Law

In 2006, Scarber was sentenced to life imprisonment; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. On November 12, 2009, Scarber moved to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction, which the court took as a post-conviction motion for relief and denied, The Court of Appeals affirmed. In March, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. In August, 2011, he filed an unsuccessful state habeas petition. The district court dismissed a federal petition as untimely. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act statute of limitations ran during periods when Scarber had the opportunity to, but did not, seek reconsideration. The limitation period began to run on March 20, 2009, after the 90 days when Scarber could have sought review of the merits judgment against him with the U.S. Supreme Court. It was tolled with 128 days remaining from November 12, 2009 (motion to dismiss filed) until March 8, 2011 (Michigan Supreme Court rejected appeal) and resumed running the day after the Michigan Supreme Court upheld denial of Scarber’s request to appeal. If Scarber had sought reconsideration, the limitation period would have been tolled because an application for state review would shave been pending. View "Scarber v. Palmer" on Justia Law

Michael worked as a Troy patrol officer since 1987. In 2000-2001 he had partially successful surgeries to remove a non-cancerous brain tumor and returned to the force. In 2007, Michael’s then-wife Jamie found a box of empty steroid vials—some labeled for veterinary use and all belonging to Michael—which she gave to then-Chief of Police, Craft. Michael conducted a two-year campaign to get them back, secretly recording and suing Craft. Michael secretly recorded Jamie during marriage-counseling sessions and family gatherings, and asked the prosecutor to charge Jamie with perjury. The new Chief, Mayer, received reports that Michael had accompanied a cocaine dealer to drug deals. Mayer suspended Michael from active duty pending investigation, but tabled that investigation when Michael needed another brain surgery. After Michael’s surgeon cleared him for work, the city requested a psychological evaluation. A neuropsychologist concluded that Michael “may be a threat to himself and others.” The city placed Michael on unpaid leave. Another neuropsychologist pronounced him fit for duty. A third found him unfit. Two others, who reviewed Michael’s file (but did not examine him), concluded that he could return to work. Michael saw a professor of neuropsychology at the University of Michigan, who concluded that Michael has weak “executive functioning,” and that “[s]afety with use of weapons and high-speed driving would be in question.” Michael kept that report to himself and sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the city, holding that Michael was not qualified for the position of patrol officer. View "Michael v. City of Troy Police Dep't" on Justia Law

In 2009, a first grade student complained to a teacher that her genitals hurt and the teacher sent her to the school nurse who visually inspected the girl. Plaintiff, the girl's mother, filed a money-damages action against the nurse and the school district for conducting a search in violation of her child’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court subsequently issued an injunction that required the school system to train its nurses more effectively to prevent incidents of this sort from happening again. The court reversed the injunction because: (1) the mother did not seek such an injunction; (2) the undisturbed (and now unappealed) jury verdict that no constitutional violation occurred eliminated the factual predicate for such an injunction; and (3) the mother (and daughter) lacked standing to obtain such an injunction anyway. The court directed the district court to enter judgment in favor of the school district. View "Hearring v. Sliwowski" on Justia Law