Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

An inmate in the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC) filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging that several ADC employees retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The inmate claimed retaliation occurred after he filed a grievance, circulated a memorandum encouraging other inmates to file grievances against a new administrative directive, and threatened a lawsuit. The directive in question imposed a three-page limit on non-privileged correspondence between inmates and non-incarcerated individuals. The inmate was charged with rule violations, placed in isolation, and later moved to administrative segregation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that they had valid, non-retaliatory reasons for their actions, as the inmate had violated prison rules. The district court also denied the inmate's request for an extension of time to file his own summary judgment motion, citing a lack of good cause and the age of the case. The inmate appealed both decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the inmate’s circulation of the memorandum was protected conduct under the First Amendment and that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a security concern justifying the disciplinary actions. The court also found that the district court erred in relying on a written charge of a rule violation that was dismissed on procedural grounds and on the inmate’s deposition testimony given years later. However, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of the inmate’s request for an extension of time to file a summary judgment motion, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Lamar v. Payne" on Justia Law

Christopher Drew was arrested after officers responded to a harassment complaint from his neighbor, who reported that Drew had threatened her and her child. When officers arrived at Drew's apartment, they found him in a confrontation with another woman. During the arrest, Officer Hemsted pepper-sprayed Drew without warning after Drew refused to comply with orders and warned the officer not to touch him. Drew later pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment and subsequently sued the officers and the City of Des Moines under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, failure to intervene, and Monell liability.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that Officer Hemsted's use of force was objectively reasonable. The court concluded that the officers did not violate Drew's Fourth Amendment rights and dismissed all claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Officer Hemsted was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that using pepper spray in this context violated Drew's constitutional rights. The court noted that Drew was suspected of a serious crime involving threats of violence and was noncompliant during the arrest. The court distinguished this case from others involving less severe crimes and minimal safety threats. Consequently, the court also found that Officer Ulin and the City of Des Moines were not liable, as they were not on fair notice that their actions were unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and granted the motion to supplement the record with bodycam footage. View "Drew v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

In 1993, Darrin Rick pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct involving four developmentally disabled girls and one seven-year-old boy. After failing to complete sex-offender treatment programs in prison, Hennepin County petitioned to civilly commit him as a "sexually dangerous person." Three psychologists, including two appointed by a Minnesota district court, agreed that Rick met the criteria for commitment. Consequently, he was committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. In 2007, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined further review of his case. Years later, new expert reports suggested that the actuarial tools used to justify his commitment had overestimated his risk of recidivism.Rick filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that the new evidence showed he was "actually innocent" of being a sexually dangerous person. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota entertained the petition under the actual-innocence exception, finding that the reliance on outdated expert reports and actuarial data violated his due-process rights. The court granted habeas relief, allowing Rick to bypass the one-year statute of limitations for filing the petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and focused on whether the actual-innocence exception could apply to civil commitments. The court concluded that the exception, traditionally used in criminal cases to address wrongful convictions, does not extend to civil commitments. The court emphasized that the exception is meant for cases involving criminal guilt or innocence, not predictions of future dangerousness. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief and remanded the case for denial of Rick's petition. View "Rick v. Harpstead" on Justia Law

James Setchfield, a 68-year-old man, filed a lawsuit against St. Charles County Police Department officers Nicholas Seiverling and Scott Ronald, alleging they used excessive force during an incident in a parking lot. The incident began when Setchfield arrived to pick up his son, who had been arrested for driving under the influence. A confrontation ensued between Setchfield and Corporal Ronald, during which Setchfield was allegedly beaten by the officers while still seated in his car. Setchfield claimed he did not threaten or resist the officers, but was nonetheless pulled from his car, beaten, and arrested, resulting in various injuries and subsequent PTSD.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed claims against St. Charles County and one officer, John Williams, but denied summary judgment for Corporal Ronald and Officer Seiverling on Setchfield’s excessive force and unlawful arrest claims. The court found that material factual disputes remained, precluding summary judgment based on qualified immunity for the officers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment, holding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Setchfield, the officers used unreasonable force against a non-threatening, non-resisting individual. Additionally, the court determined that the officers lacked probable cause or arguable probable cause to arrest Setchfield for interfering with police duties or resisting arrest. The court concluded that the officers’ actions violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus denying them qualified immunity. View "Setchfield v. Ronald" on Justia Law

Eddie Humes was arrested on October 19, 2017, and booked into the White County Detention Center. The next day, he was bitten by a spider, causing his hand and arm to swell significantly. Over three days, Humes repeatedly asked Lieutenant Misty Jones and Deputy Stephanie Gray for medical help, showing them his worsening condition. Despite their assurances, they took no action. By October 25, Humes's hand and arm had swollen to the size of a small watermelon and were oozing pus. He filed a grievance and was taken to the emergency room, where he was diagnosed with a staph infection and treated. The next day, he developed a high fever and was diagnosed with an abscess, requiring emergency surgery.Humes filed a civil-rights lawsuit against several defendants, including Jones and Gray, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to all defendants except Jones and Gray in their individual capacities, denying them qualified immunity. Jones and Gray appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The court considered whether Jones and Gray violated a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established. The court found that the district court correctly determined that a reasonable jury could find Jones and Gray were deliberately indifferent to Humes's serious medical needs, as they ignored his worsening condition. The court also held that the right to medical care for serious conditions was clearly established, referencing precedents like Hartsfield v. Colburn and Dadd v. Anoka County. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and remanded the case for trial. View "Humes v. Jones" on Justia Law

Luke LeFever was involved in a series of criminal activities following a roadside encounter with Deputy Castellanos of the Dawson County Sheriff’s Department. LeFever lunged at the deputy, was tased twice, and fled the scene. He attempted to steal multiple vehicles, broke into a home, assaulted a resident, and led officers on a high-speed chase, driving recklessly and endangering public safety. The chase ended when officers fired 60 to 70 rounds at LeFever’s vehicle, resulting in serious injuries.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied LeFever’s requests for appointed counsel and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court found that Deputy Castellanos had probable cause for the initial arrest and that the use of force, including the tasings and the shot fired at the utility vehicle’s wheel, was reasonable. The court also found that the report of “shots fired” by Deputy Castellanos did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Additionally, the court ruled that the actions of the other officers during the chase and subsequent shooting were reasonable under the circumstances and that qualified immunity applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court agreed that the use of force by Deputy Castellanos and the other officers was reasonable and that qualified immunity protected the officers from liability. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of LeFever’s requests for appointed counsel, noting that the facts and legal issues were clear and uncomplicated, and that the district court had provided adequate assistance to LeFever in managing his case. View "LeFever v. Castellanos" on Justia Law

Joshua Francisco, an inmate at Farmington Correctional Center (FCC), suffered from mental illness and was placed on suicide watch multiple times during his incarceration. Despite receiving treatment and being evaluated by mental health professionals, Francisco was found hanging in his cell on October 22, 2014, after his cellmate reported he was suicidal. Francisco had denied being suicidal to correctional officers and mental health staff earlier that day.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment in favor of the correctional officers and the warden, finding no deliberate indifference to Francisco's medical needs. The court determined that the officers' actions did not rise to the level of criminal recklessness required to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the correctional officers and the warden were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers had conducted reasonable investigations and searches based on the information available to them and that Francisco's repeated denials of suicidal intent, along with the absence of a noose, did not indicate a strong likelihood of self-harm. The court also concluded that the warden was not personally involved in any unconstitutional custom or practice and that the claim of an unconstitutional policy requiring inmates to explicitly state they were suicidal was not supported by the evidence. View "Francisco v. Villmer" on Justia Law

In 2020, a student organization at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, along with two students, sued the University for alleged First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. The case centered on the University's allocation of lounge space in the Coffman Memorial Union to certain student organizations, particularly nine cultural centers. The plaintiffs argued that this allocation constituted viewpoint discrimination and gave unbridled discretion to University officials.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed three of the five claims and later granted summary judgment in favor of the University on the remaining claims. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination and deemed the unbridled discretion doctrine inapplicable to the University's past allocation decision. The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment on one claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court agreed that the lounge space was a limited public forum and found that the University's allocation process was viewpoint neutral and reasonable. The court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of viewpoint discrimination and that the University's decision was based on status-based distinctions, not viewpoint-based ones. The court also upheld the district court's finding that the unbridled discretion doctrine did not apply, as the challenge was to a past decision rather than an ongoing policy.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the University's allocation of lounge space did not violate the First Amendment. View "Viewpoint Neutrality Now! v. Regents of the University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

On December 26, 2019, Officers Rozeboom and Malone responded to a shoplifting report at Dick’s Sporting Goods in Papillion, Nebraska. The suspects were described as a black male and black female in a silver four-door sedan. Malone spotted a similar vehicle and conducted a traffic stop. Storrs, a black male, was driving, and Smith, a white female, was the passenger. Despite the discrepancy in the suspect description, the officers detained Storrs and Smith. During the encounter, Storrs and Smith were uncooperative, leading to their arrest and a search of their vehicle, which allegedly smelled of marijuana.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims. The court determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and probable cause for the continued detention and search based on the alleged odor of marijuana. The court also found no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision in part, agreeing that the officers had probable cause to arrest Storrs and Smith for obstructing a peace officer and that there was no evidence of excessive force or First Amendment retaliation. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the claim of unlawful continued detention, finding that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion once they saw Smith was white. The court also found a genuine dispute of fact regarding the alleged odor of marijuana, precluding summary judgment on the illegal search claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Storrs v. Rozeboom" on Justia Law

Kenneth Hunt arrived at the Lee County Courthouse to testify in a criminal case. Directed outside due to courtroom scheduling, Hunt re-entered and sat on a staircase. Officer Dale Acosta confronted Hunt, leading to a heated exchange. Despite Hunt's explanation of his courthouse business, Acosta arrested him for obstruction, claiming Hunt disrupted the county tax office.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed most of Hunt's claims but allowed his Fourth Amendment claim against Acosta, a failure to train or supervise claim against Mayor Jimmy Williams and Chief of Police Martin Wilson, and a Monell claim against the City of Marianna. The court denied qualified and quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta and qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson. Acosta, Williams, and Wilson appealed the denial of immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's denial of quasi-judicial immunity for Acosta's initial stop of Hunt, as Acosta acted under a judge's directive. However, the court affirmed the denial of quasi-judicial and qualified immunity for Acosta's arrest of Hunt, finding no probable cause for obstruction. The court also reversed the denial of qualified immunity for Williams and Wilson, ruling that Hunt failed to show a pattern of unconstitutional acts by Acosta that would have put them on notice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Hunt v. Acosta" on Justia Law