Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against law enforcement officers and other city employees based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff's claims arose from the officer's actions handcuffing, detaining, and involuntarily committing him after a welfare check. Plaintiff alleges that he experienced pain in his shoulder from tight handcuffing that occurred over a matter of minutes. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the officers violated his clearly established rights where tight handcuffing alone, even where a detainee sustains minor injuries, does not present an excessive force claim. View "Templeton v. Jarmillo" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the Harris County District Attorney (DA) from enforcing a Texas anti-barratry law. The court concluded that plaintiff has not shown that his First Amendment claim is likely to succeed on the merits where the anti-barratry law is likely narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing confusion that damages relationships between appointed counsel and indigent defendants. The court declined plaintiff's request to assign the case to a different district judge on remand, concluding that this case does not merit reassignment under either of the two relevant tests. View "Willey v. Harris County District Attorney" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for sexual harassment and retaliation against the City of Houston. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from the repeated viewing of a private, intimate video of plaintiff by two senior firefighters. While the court agreed that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to plaintiff's retaliation claim, the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that no genuine issue exists as to her sexual harassment claim and that summary judgment for the City was appropriate.In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiff, a woman, is a member of a protected class and that she experienced unwelcome harassment; the harassment was based on sex and thus based on plaintiff's status as a member of a protected class; plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive and hostile work environment; and the conduct was objectively offensive to plaintiff and affected a term or condition of her employment. The court also concluded that plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether the City knew or should have known about the harassment, and thus can be held liable. View "Abbt v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city in an action brought by a former city employee, alleging that he had been unlawfully terminated from his job because of his age. The court agreed with the district court that no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff had been fired because of his age. In this case, plaintiff was largely unqualified for the burgeoning responsibilities of his position, and plaintiff's contention -- that a fact finder would infer this to mean that defendants thought he was old and slow -- was pure speculation. View "Harris v. City of Schertz" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' action against the TDCJ and several of its officials over prison conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs allege that TDCJ failed to provide reasonable accommodations for their co-morbidities and take other precautions against the COVID-19 pandemic and, in so doing, violated their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.The court concluded that plaintiffs' undisputed failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) resolves this case. Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, TDCJ's written response to the Step 1 grievance shows that TDCJ's grievance process could provide at least some relief to plaintiffs. The court explained that the process may have been suboptimal, but it was available as a matter of law and thus, plaintiffs were required to exhaust it before bringing this suit. View "Thoele v. Collier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police accountability activist, was arrested on crowded Sixth Street in downtown Austin while "cop watching" (video-recording police activity). After plaintiff and police officers had repeated verbal confrontations about how close to them he was permitted to stand while recording, he was arrested for misdemeanor interference with performance of official duties. Four Austin police officers took plaintiff to the ground and handcuffed him, with plaintiff suffering minor bruises and lesions as a result.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment as to plaintiff's excessive force claim and affirmed the district court's decision in all other respects. The court held that none of the officers involved in plaintiff's arrest used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also concluded that summary judgment for the officers on plaintiff's false arrest claim was proper; the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on his First Amendment claim; and his bystander and municipal liability claims fail for lack of an underlying constitutional violation. View "Buehler v. Dear" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied defendants' motion for a partial stay of the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining the Department of Defense, United States Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and United States Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro from enforcing certain COVID-19 vaccination requirements against 35 Navy special warfare personnel and prohibiting any adverse actions based on their religious accommodation requests. Specifically, defendants seek a partial stay pending appeal insofar as the injunction precludes them from considering plaintiffs' vaccination statuses "in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions."The court weighed the Mindes abstention factors and determined that this dispute is justiciable. However, the court concluded that defendants have not carried their burden to warrant the issuance of the stay. The court agreed with the district court that defendants have not shown a compelling interest to deny religious accommodations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to each of the 35 plaintiffs at issue. Rather, the "marginal interest" in vaccinating each plaintiff appears to be negligible and thus defendants lack a sufficiently compelling interest to vaccinate plaintiffs. The court also concluded that the preliminary injunction does not irreparably damage the Navy and the public; partially staying the preliminary injunction pending appeal would substantially harm plaintiffs; and issuance of the requested stay would disserve the public interest. View "U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden" on Justia Law

One of two reports of an armed confrontation at the Eden Apartments identified one perpetrator as “Thomas Johnson,” who was driving a red truck with rims. Officer Green responded and encountered a stationary red truck near an elementary school, which had been closed for months. When Green exited his car, Johnson stepped out holding a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine. His brother was driving. Johnson ran toward the school. As vehicles passed nearby, Green drew his weapon and yelled, “Drop the gun!” Johnson continued to run, Green fired at him. Green chased Johnson into an open field and continued to chase Johnson, ordering him to drop the gun and instructing onlookers to lie on the ground. Officer McKinney, at the opposite side of the field, saw Johnson outrunning Green. Johnson changed direction toward a neighborhood. Johnson ignored orders to stop. McKinney fired at Johnson, who continued to flee. Both officers gave chase, repeatedly ordering Johnson to stop and drop the gun. When in range, both officers shot. Johnson fell and dropped his gun. Johnson died on the scene.In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part. The use of deadly force was not constitutionally excessive. The officers could have reasonably believed that Johnson threatened them and others with serious physical harm. View "Wilson v. City of Bastrop" on Justia Law

Officer Martin responded to a call about neighbors throwing trash in the caller’s yard. A subsequent 911 call came from the man’s neighbor, Craig, complaining that the man had grabbed her son by the neck because the boy had allegedly littered. Martin activated his body camera at the scene. Martin got into a verbal altercation with Craig; Craig’s 14-year-old, 15-year-old, and adult daughters became involved. Martin used physical force to get them into his squad car.Craig and her children sued Martin for unlawful arrest and excessive force. Craig also sued Martin on behalf of her another minor child, alleging injuries suffered as a bystander. The district court dismissed A.C.’s claim as incognizable; it dismissed the remaining claims for unlawful arrest, holding Martin was entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied Martin qualified immunity on the excessive force claims, concluding that the video evidence submitted by Martin was “too uncertain.” The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claims, expressing no opinion on the dismissal of the other claims. Martin’s actions were sufficiently measured in relation to the plaintiffs’ resistance. Martin’s conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not violate any of their Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiffs failed to provide any controlling precedent showing that Martin’s particular conduct violated a clearly established right. View "Craig v. Martin" on Justia Law

In 1991, McFarland and an accomplice robbed Kwan’s store. McFarland’s accomplice pressed a gun against a security guard’s head. The guard dropped his weapon. McFarland or the accomplice then fatally shot Kwan. Only McFarland was prosecuted. He is on death row. After exhausting his state remedies, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court denied the petition.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court first rejected a claim of ineffective assistance. During trial, McFarland’s retained counsel, Benn was sleeping throughout significant portions of the trial and otherwise presented as unprepared. The trial judge decided to appoint additional counsel. McFarland refused to agree, but the judge appointed Melamed to serve as “second chair.” Melamed was an experienced criminal defense lawyer but he had yet to try a capital case. McFarland repeatedly affirmed that he wanted to keep Benn as counsel and would not cooperate with Melamed in securing mitigation witnesses. The court also rejected Sixth Amendment and Brady claims. McFarland did not have counsel during an identification lineup; a finding that his arrest warrant was not a formal criminal complaint giving rise to his right to counsel was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, nor was a finding that “the prosecution did not fail to disclose.” View "McFarland v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law