Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

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

When authorities booked Randall as a pretrial detainee, he was medicated and intoxicated and had a history of mental health treatment. Though Randall was supposed to “be followed for alcohol withdrawal syndrome and possible delirium tremens,” he was allegedly placed in a cell without an operable source of water, not monitored, nor provided any medication or liquids. The next day, officials found him hanging from his bedsheets. He eventually died there from his injuries.A complaint filed by Randall’s mother, Karen, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleged that Randall was survived by his wife, Kelsey and his biological parents. Karen later amended her complaint to “substitute Plaintiff with individual heirs,” adding Kelsey, and M.A., Randall’s minor child, and to allow M.A. to appear through Morrow, her mother. The district court dismissed, holding that Karen lacked standing and adding Kelsey and M.A. could not cure the initial jurisdictional defect.The Fifth Circuit reversed. The district court was “less than meticulous” in analyzing “standing.” While Karen lacked prudential standing because Louisiana law does not authorize her to bring this particular cause of action, she has Article III standing. She has a constitutionally cognizable interest in the life of her son, which does not depend on whether Louisiana law allows her to sue. View "Abraugh v. Altimus" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for conspiracy to commit retaliatory employment termination. The court concluded that plaintiff plausibly averred that defendants deprived him of his First Amendment rights, and that defendants had fair warning that using their respective government positions to violate plaintiff's First Amendment rights would be objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time. The court also concluded that plaintiff has also stated a claim for conspiracy under section 1983. View "Bevill v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

Pennywell delivered his petition for direct review of his state conviction—which resulted in multiple life sentences—to prison guards for mailing. Through some unknown fault in the mailing process, the Louisiana Supreme Court never received the petition. Once Pennywell discovered the petition had never arrived at the Louisiana Supreme Court, he promptly refiled it. As a result of the untimeliness caused by the mailing failure of his first petition, however, the Louisiana Supreme Court dismissed his renewed petition for direct review as untimely. That decision was the basis for all subsequent denials of state and federal post-conviction relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Pennywell’s petition, holding that Pennywell was entitled to equitable tolling. The failure to timely deliver the petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court was through no fault of Pennywell; by the failure of the mail system, Pennywell was “prevented in some extraordinary way from asserting his rights.” Given the undisputed facts, Pennywell demonstrated due diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that justify equitable tolling. View "Pennywell v. Hooper" on Justia Law