Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

This case concerns the denial of qualified immunity to a police officer. Plaintiff and four of her children sued the officer asserting claims for unlawful arrest, bystander injury, and excessive use of force. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claims on qualified immunity grounds. This interlocutory appeal followed.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claims and render judgment in Defendant’s favor as to those claims. The court explained that Defendant's conduct, in this case, was not objectively unreasonable and did not violate any of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights. On this basis alone, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.   Further, the court wrote, that even assuming Plaintiffs could show that Defendant committed a constitutional violation, Defendant is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Defendant’s use of force, in this case, is also far less severe than the use of force in any of the cases Plaintiffs have identified. Although Plaintiffs need not point to a factually identical case to demonstrate that the law is clearly established, they nonetheless must provide some controlling precedent that “squarely governs the specific facts at issue. Here, Plaintiffs have not provided such precedent here and thus have failed to show that the law clearly established that Defendant’s particular conduct was unlawful at the time of the incident. View "Craig v. Martin" on Justia Law

Texas City’s “permit officer” handles applications for ambulance permits for the City. One day, he spotted an ambulance without a permit. He knew he was powerless to issue citations to the drivers himself, so he summoned someone who could (the Fire Marshal). While waiting for the Fire Marshal to show up, the officer repeatedly told the ambulance drivers that they were detained, that they could not leave, and that they must stay. He did not have that power, but he did it anyway. The Fire Marshal showed up about thirty minutes later and issued them citations. The ambulance drivers sued, claiming this violated their Fourth Amendment rights.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part finding that because the officer acted beyond the scope of his discretionary duties as “permit officer,” he is not entitled to qualified immunity. But the claim against the City fails because the officer did not have final policymaking authority. The court explained that the officer was not acting within the scope of his discretionary authority because state law does not give a permit officer the authority to conduct stops of any kind.   However, the court wrote, that the City cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 because Wylie does not have any final policymaking authority. Section 1983 allows suits against persons for violating federal rights. That term includes municipalities like Texas City. But a city cannot be held liable under Section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory of liability. Rather, a city can be liable only if one of its policies or customs caused the injury. View "Sweetin v. City of Texas City" on Justia Law

This dispute is about whether Texas must provide around-the-clock nursing services to a disabled individuals even though the expense of doing so exceeds the cost cap in the state’s Medicaid program. Plaintiff contends that the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act require this service because the alternative of institutionalization would amount to discrimination. The district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring Texas to provide the nursing services.   The Fifth Circuit vacated the injunction. The court explained that with the scorecard lopsided in favor of exercising jurisdiction, it is unlikely the district court abused its discretion in declining to abstain. Further, although Plaintiff has shown that the district court should hear her claims, we conclude she is unlikely to succeed on one of them: her due process claim. The court found that because it is unlikely that Plaintiff has a property interest in the treatment she is seeking, a preliminary injunction was not warranted on her due process claim. Finally, on the current record, Plaintiff has not shown that she can prevail on an Olmstead claim seeking services that exceed the cost cap in Texas’s Medicaid waiver program. View "Harrison v. Young" on Justia Law

While violently resisting several prison guards, Plaintiff’s arm was broken by one guard’s baton strikes. Plaintiff sued for excessive force. The district court granted the guard summary judgment based on qualified immunity.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court considered the Hudson factors in determining when force was applied in good faith. Here, all agree Plaintiff suffered more than a de minimis injury. The first factor weighs in Plaintiff’s favor. But force was obviously needed. The officers faced a violent inmate who had previously told the guard that he “will kill before [he] get[s] killed.” The third factor asks whether striking Plaintiff’s arm was needed to subdue him. Nonetheless, the guard’s strikes came at the culmination of a violent encounter with a prisoner determined to fight through the chemical spray and riot shields. The Supreme Court has told judges not to micro-manage the force necessary to quell such volatile situations. Next, there is no dispute that the guard faced, as he puts it, a “hostile, combative, utterly non-compliant” prisoner who was committed to violent resistance.  In sum, the court saw no error in the district court’s application of the Hudson factors to the undisputed facts here. View "Byrd v. Harrell, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a local delivery driver for Cintas Corporation. That means he picked up items from a Houston warehouse (items shipped from out of state) and delivered them to local customers. Lopez does not want to arbitrate his claims against Cintas. He says that he is exempt from doing so because he belongs to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.   The Fifth Circuit partially affirmed the district court’s ruling finding that Plaintiff is not a “transportation worker” under Section 1 of the FAA. However, because Plaintiff's unconscionability challenge to his employment agreement must be decided in arbitration, the court vacated and remanded for that claim to be dismissed without prejudice to be considered in arbitration in the first instance.   The court explained that unlike either seamen or railroad employees, the local delivery drivers here have a more customer-facing role, which further underscores that this class does not fall within Section 1’s ambit. As a result, the transportation-worker exemption does not apply to this class of local delivery drivers. Further, because unconscionability under Texas law is a challenge to the validity, not the existence, of a contract, that challenge must be resolved by an arbitrator. Thus, the court held that the district court erred in resolving the merits of Plaintiff’s unconscionability claim. View "Lopez v. Cintas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was prosecuted for knowing failure to report scrap metal transactions to the Texas Department of Public Safety, as required by state law. A jury acquitted him. Plaintiff then sued Houston Police Sergeant, claiming Defendant had provided false information that led to Plaintiff’s arrest and prosecution. The district court, concluding Defendant’s affidavit omitted material facts, denied him qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for Defendant.   The court explained that contrary to the district court’s ruling, C&D’s computer problems were not material to whether probable cause existed to suspect Plaintiff had violated the reporting provisions. By his own admission, Plaintiff did not submit approximately twenty-four required reports to DPS. Plaintiff also knew Scrap Dragon was failing to send reports to DPS. The court explained that one could reasonably believe Plaintiff knew that continuing to use the flawed system would result in reporting failures. He had been warned about the system’s deficiencies months before his arrest and yet failed to use the statutory safe haven. So, even had Defendant mentioned the Scrap Dragon glitch, his affidavit still would have shown probable cause. Thus, Plaintiff failed to allege a Fourth Amendment violation. Further, even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation, the claimed right was not clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. View "Laviage v. Fite" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a person of color and of mixed heritage, reported to school administrators that she was harassed by her peers on the basis of her race and national origin during her sixth-grade year in the Austin Independent School District. Plaintiff alleged that she was told to "go back where [she] came from" and that, in some cases, the harassment involved physical shoving. There were also incidents in which Plaintiff responded physically to verbal threats and name-calling, resulting in the school requesting she be transferred. Through her parents, Plaintiff sued the District for failure to address the harassment under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's 1983 claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the district on Plaintiff's Title VI claim.While the Fifth Circuit took issue with some of the district court's findings, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court ultimately reached the correct result. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's 1983 claim and the court's grant of summary judgment on the Title VI claim. View "Menzia v. Austin Indep School Dist" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because he was detained without probable cause for driving while intoxicated. He brought suit under Section 1983, seeking damages from the officers who submitted an affidavit and incident reports to a magistrate to support his pretrial detention. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the defense of qualified immunity. The district court determined that fact issues precluded summary judgment, specifically, whether the officers made false statements that Plaintiff was “operating a motor vehicle” in violation of Texas law.The Fifth Circuit reversed. Under Texas law, the inquiry when determining whether a person caused a vehicle to move must take into account “the totality of the circumstances [regarding whether] the defendant took action to affect the functioning of his vehicle in a manner that would enable the vehicle’s use.” The court explained that the officers' allegedly false statements pertained to how far the vehicle moved rather than whether it moved at all. Even if a vehicle only moved six inches, that may be sufficient to establish the operation element. View "Garcia v. Orta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, on behalf of her son, sued District Attorney, Sheriffs, and Clay County under Section 1983 alleging that Defendants violated her son’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by unlawfully detaining him for years. The complaint also contends that, at one point, the Sheriff held Defendant down and forced him to take unwanted medication. As to Clay County, Plaintiff argued that Sheriffs were final policymakers, making the county liable under Monell. Defendants sought summary judgment; Plaintiff responded with a motion for partial summary judgment.   After summary judgment, the following claims remained: the detention claim against the Sheriffs and Clay County; the forced medication claim against Clay County alone. The Sheriffs and Clay County appealed. The Fifth Circuit, in treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, granted the petition for panel rehearing. The court dismissed Clay County’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment as to the Sheriffs.   The court explained that this is not a case about jailers following court orders that turned out to be unconstitutional. These Sheriffs held Plaintiff’s son in violation of a court order that followed Jackson’s commit-or-release rule. The court wrote that it cannot be that the initial detention order in a case overrides subsequent release orders and allows jailers to indefinitely hold defendants without consequence. Thus, taking the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, the Sheriffs violated Plaintiff’s due process right by detaining him for six years in violation of the commit-or-release rule and qualified immunity thus does not protect the Sheriffs. View "Harris v. Clay County, MS" on Justia Law

The issue before the en banc court was whether the current version of Miss. Const. art. 12, Section 241 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. This provision was upheld in Cotton v. Fordice, 157 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 1998), which was binding on the district court and the panel decision here, but the court voted to reconsider Cotton en banc.   Plaintiffs are black men in Mississippi who were convicted, respectively, of forgery and embezzlement. Both are disenfranchised under current Mississippi law because of their convictions. They filed suit against the Mississippi Secretary of State under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to restore the voting rights of convicted felons in Mississippi. They contend that the crimes that “remain” in Section 241 from the 1890 Constitution are still tainted by the racial animus with which they were originally enacted.   The Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that the current version of Section 241 superseded the previous provisions and removed the discriminatory taint associated with the provision adopted in 1890. Cotton, 157 F.3d at 391–92. Further, the court held that Plaintiffs failed to establish the 1968 reenactment of Section 241 was motivated by racism. The court explained that contrary to Plaintiffs’ principal assertion, the critical issue here is not the intent behind Mississippi’s 1890 Constitution, but whether the reenactment of Section 241 in 1968 was free of intentional racial discrimination. Accordingly, as a matter of law, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Section 241 as it currently stands was motivated by discriminatory intent or that any other approach to demonstrating the provision’s unconstitutionality is viable. View "Harness v. Watson" on Justia Law