Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Kentucky issued orders prohibiting mass gatherings, including religious services, and closing non-life-sustaining organizations, which included religious organizations. Maryville Baptist Church held an Easter service in defiance of these orders, leading to a lawsuit against the Governor, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky initially declined to issue a preliminary injunction. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a partial stay, allowing outdoor worship. Subsequently, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, permitting both indoor and outdoor worship. The Governor later allowed places of worship to reopen, and the Kentucky General Assembly limited the Governor's authority to issue similar orders in the future. The underlying action was dismissed as moot, and the Church sought attorney’s fees, which the district court denied, ruling that the Church did not prevail.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, which held that a party who receives a preliminary injunction but whose case becomes moot before a final judgment does not qualify as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Applying this precedent, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of attorney’s fees, concluding that the Church's preliminary injunction did not constitute enduring judicial relief that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. View "Maryville Baptist Church v. Beshear" on Justia Law

Aaron Salter spent 15 years in prison for a shooting he did not commit, based on a single eyewitness's testimony. The eyewitness identified Salter from a single mug shot shown by Detective Donald Olsen, who also failed to disclose that the eyewitness had identified another man from a photo array. Salter claims that Olsen's actions led to his wrongful conviction.Salter filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Olsen violated his constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and conducting an unduly suggestive identification process. Olsen moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion. Olsen appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed parts of the appeal for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction but affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the Brady claim and the suggestive identification claim. The court held that there were material disputes of fact regarding whether Olsen withheld evidence and whether the identification process was unduly suggestive and unreliable. The court also found that it was clearly established in 2003 that such actions violated constitutional rights, and thus, Olsen was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Salter v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

On November 30, 2021, a 15-year-old student, E.C., brought a gun to Oxford High School in Michigan and shot ten students and one teacher, resulting in four student deaths. E.C. pled guilty to first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence. His parents were also convicted of manslaughter. Victims of the shooting filed multiple lawsuits in state court against school and law enforcement officials, alleging various tort claims. The consolidated federal cases here involve claims that school officials violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan largely dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to support an inference that the school officials' actions were so outrageous as to shock the conscience. However, the court allowed one claim to proceed, finding that a statement made by a school counselor, Shawn Hopkins, to E.C.'s parents about contacting Child Protective Services if they did not get counseling for E.C. within 48 hours, could potentially support a constitutional claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of most claims. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the school officials' actions were so egregious as to violate due process. The court found that the actions of returning E.C.'s backpack and failing to inform other officials about the risk did not constitute affirmative acts that increased the danger to the plaintiffs. The court also held that Hopkins' statement to E.C.'s parents did not demonstrate reckless or callous indifference. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to allow the claim based on Hopkins' statement to proceed and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss all claims. View "St. Juliana v. Oxford Community School District" on Justia Law

George Clark and Kevin Harrington were convicted of murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Bearia Stewart, who later claimed she was coerced by detectives to lie. After nearly two decades in prison, the Wayne County Prosecution Integrity Unit found that Clark and Harrington did not receive a fair trial, leading to the dismissal of charges and their release. Clark and Harrington then sued the detectives, alleging constitutional violations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part the detectives' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court denied qualified immunity on claims that the detectives fabricated the eyewitness statement, facilitated prosecution without probable cause, and violated the Brady rule by withholding evidence of coercion and benefits offered to key witnesses. The detectives appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity, holding that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the fabrication of evidence and the lack of probable cause. The court also held that the detectives' actions, if proven, violated clearly established constitutional rights. The case was remanded for trial on the merits. View "Clark v. Abdallah" on Justia Law

Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on a wet shower floor in a county jail. She pursued constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county, corrections officers, and medical personnel. Coleman claimed that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause and that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care. She also questioned whether the county could invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all claims against all parties. The court found that Coleman failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation regarding the slippery shower and did not connect the inadequate medical care to a county policy or custom. The court also held that Ohio law granted immunity to Hamilton County on the negligence claim. The court allowed Coleman to conduct limited discovery to identify unnamed officers and nurses, but her subsequent amended complaint was dismissed as it was filed outside the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal, holding that Coleman’s claims accrued on the date of her accident and that her amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also found that Coleman did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling, as she did not allege facts showing that she was intentionally misled or tricked into missing the deadline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. View "Coleman v. Hamilton County Bd. of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

In 1995, Garr Keith Hardin and Jeffrey Clark were convicted of murdering Rhonda Sue Warford based on forensic evidence and witness testimonies. Robert Thurman, a forensic serologist, testified that a hair found at the crime scene was similar to Hardin’s hair. After over two decades in prison, DNA testing revealed that the hair did not belong to Hardin, leading a state court to vacate their convictions. Hardin and Clark then sued Thurman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he failed to disclose observation notes that suggested the hair might not have matched Hardin’s hair sample, violating his obligations under Brady v. Maryland.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied Thurman’s qualified-immunity defense for Hardin’s Brady claim but granted summary judgment on other claims. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Thurman should have recognized the exculpatory value of his notes and that the notes were material to Hardin’s defense. The court also held that Thurman could not invoke qualified immunity because Hardin’s Brady rights were clearly established before 1992.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision in part and dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Thurman’s arguments that the notes were not exculpatory or material, as these were mixed questions of law and fact. However, the court rejected Thurman’s argument that the law in the mid-1990s did not clearly establish that Brady’s duty of disclosure applied to forensic scientists, affirming that such duties were clearly established and applicable to Thurman. View "Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs David Moore and David Ermold sued Kim Davis, the clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for refusing to issue them a marriage license, claiming it violated their constitutional right to marry. This refusal occurred after the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Davis, citing her religious beliefs, stopped issuing all marriage licenses until the state provided her with an accommodation. Plaintiffs sought damages for the emotional distress caused by Davis's actions.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on liability, and a jury awarded them compensatory damages. Davis appealed, arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity, had defenses under the Free Exercise Clause and the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and that the evidence of emotional distress was insufficient to support the jury's award.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Davis was not entitled to qualified immunity because Obergefell clearly established the right to same-sex marriage, and Davis's actions violated that right. The court also rejected Davis's Free Exercise Clause defense, stating that the First Amendment does not protect state actions that violate constitutional rights. Additionally, the court found that Kentucky's RFRA did not apply in this case because the state was not a party to the lawsuit.The court further upheld the jury's award of damages, finding that the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of emotional distress. The court noted that the plaintiffs' detailed testimony about their emotional harm was corroborated and not merely conclusory. Davis's request for remittitur was not considered because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief. The Sixth Circuit thus affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Ermold v. Davis" on Justia Law

In March 2020, Andrew Cooperrider, owner of Brewed, a coffee shop and bar in Lexington, Kentucky, criticized Governor Beshear’s COVID-19 policies on social media. In November 2020, the Kentucky Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC) suspended Brewed’s alcohol license, and officially revoked it in March 2022. Cooperrider filed a lawsuit against Governor Beshear, DABC officials, and other state officials, alleging First Amendment retaliation and due-process violations, claiming the license revocation was in retaliation for his critical speech.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed the case, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court found that most of Cooperrider’s claims were barred by absolute, qualified, and sovereign immunity. It also determined that Cooperrider’s remaining substantive-due-process claim did not meet the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of most claims, agreeing that the defendants were protected by absolute, qualified, and sovereign immunity. However, the appellate court found that the district court improperly granted qualified immunity to Governor Beshear, Ray Perry, and Wesley Duke regarding Cooperrider’s First Amendment retaliation claim. The appellate court held that Cooperrider had plausibly alleged that the enforcement action against Brewed was motivated by his protected speech. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s decision on this point and remanded the case for further proceedings on the First Amendment retaliation claim. View "Cooperrider v. Woods" on Justia Law

Lamont Heard, a Michigan prisoner, claimed that prison officials retaliated against him for his litigation activities by transferring him to a different housing unit. He sought to sue the officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. Heard was transferred on January 10, 2017, and filed a grievance the next day. After exhausting his administrative remedies, he filed a lawsuit on January 19, 2021, four years and nine days after the transfer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Heard's claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Heard then exhausted his remedies and refiled his lawsuit. The district court dismissed the refiled claim as untimely, reasoning that Michigan's tolling provision, which pauses the statute of limitations while a claim is pending in court, conflicted with the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Michigan's tolling provision does not conflict with the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. The PLRA requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a federal lawsuit but does not address tolling. The court emphasized that federal courts have historically borrowed state statutes of limitations and tolling provisions for § 1983 suits. The court found that Michigan's tolling rule, which pauses the statute of limitations during a prior suit, is consistent with the PLRA and does not undermine its purposes. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, allowing Heard's claim to proceed. View "Heard v. Strange" on Justia Law

Glorianna Moore was stopped by Officer Brian Wilson for speeding in Pontiac, Michigan. When Moore refused to show her license and moved her hands towards the center console, Wilson reached into her car, grabbed her arm, and ordered her to shut off the car. Moore resisted by screaming and twisting her body. Wilson restrained her by holding her arm and head until backup arrived. Moore was subsequently handcuffed and placed in Wilson's patrol car. Although an initial test indicated the presence of cocaine in Moore's car, further testing revealed it was not cocaine, leading to the dismissal of all charges against her.Moore filed a § 1983 action against Wilson and other officers, alleging excessive force in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to all defendants except Wilson, who appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer Wilson did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment principles. The court reasoned that Wilson's actions were reasonable given Moore's refusal to show her license, her movement towards the center console, and her active resistance. The court concluded that no clearly established law indicated that Wilson's use of force was excessive under the circumstances, thus entitling him to qualified immunity. View "Moore v. Oakland County" on Justia Law