Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Three individuals, Jamarr Smith, Thomas Iroko Ayodele, and Gilbert McThunel, were convicted of robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery. The convictions were based on evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, which collected location data from Google to identify suspects. The robbery involved the theft of $60,706 from a U.S. Postal Service route driver, Sylvester Cobbs, who was attacked with pepper spray and a handgun. Video footage and witness testimony linked the suspects to the crime scene, but no arrests were made immediately. Investigators later used a geofence warrant to gather location data from Google, which led to the identification of the suspects.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi denied the defendants' motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant. The defendants argued that the warrant violated their Fourth Amendment rights due to lack of probable cause and particularity, and that the government did not follow proper legal procedures in obtaining additional information from Google. The district court found that law enforcement acted in good faith and denied the motion to suppress. The defendants were subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 121 to 136 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that geofence warrants, as used in this case, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because they resemble general warrants, which are prohibited. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress, citing the good-faith exception. The court concluded that law enforcement acted reasonably given the novelty of the geofence warrant and the lack of clear legal precedent. Therefore, the convictions were upheld. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In May 2020, following the death of George Floyd, several individuals participated in or were near protests in downtown Houston. They allege that they were falsely arrested by City of Houston police officers who used "kettle maneuvers" to confine and arrest protesters. The plaintiffs claim that then-Chief of Police Art Acevedo implemented a policy of "kettling" and arresting protesters. They sued the City and Acevedo under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, based on the assertion that there was no probable cause for their arrests under section 42.03 of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibits obstructing passageways.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas found that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs under section 42.03 and dismissed the claims against both the City and Acevedo. The plaintiffs appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two previous panels had addressed similar issues with conflicting outcomes. In Utley v. City of Houston, the panel found probable cause for arrest and affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s § 1983 lawsuit. Conversely, in Herrera v. Acevedo, the panel found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged false arrest and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The current panel agreed with the Utley decision, holding that there was probable cause to arrest the plaintiffs for obstructing a passageway under section 42.03. The court found that the size and location of the protests provided sufficient probable cause for the arrests, thus negating any First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment violations. Consequently, the claims against the City and Acevedo were dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Wade v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Arthur Lee Burton was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in June 1998 for kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and strangling a woman in Houston, Texas. His conviction was affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but his sentence was vacated and remanded for a new trial on punishment. Upon retrial, he was again sentenced to death, and this sentence was affirmed. Burton pursued state and federal habeas relief, which were all denied.Burton recently filed three challenges to his scheduled execution in Texas state court, including motions to withdraw his execution order and a habeas petition alleging constitutional violations. These challenges were rejected by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Subsequently, Burton sought authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to file a successive federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and moved to stay his execution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied both motions. The court held that Burton's petition was untimely, as it was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed by § 2244(d). Burton's reliance on Atkins v. Virginia and Moore v. Texas was insufficient to excuse the delay, as both cases were decided long before his current motion. The court also rejected Burton's arguments for equitable tolling and actual innocence, finding that he had not pursued his rights diligently and that his claims were not supported by extraordinary circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that Burton failed to meet the requirements of § 2244 and denied his motion to stay execution. View "In re Burton" on Justia Law

Bilal Hankins, a passenger in a car with two other youths, was driving slowly at night looking for a neighbor’s lost dog. Hankins asked Officer Kevin Wheeler, who was on patrol for a local private security district, for assistance in finding the dog. Later, Officer Wheeler and another officer, Officer Ramon Pierre, stopped the car without reasonable suspicion and approached it with guns drawn. Hankins brought claims under Sections 1983 for unreasonable seizure, excessive force, constitutional conspiracy, supervisory liability, and Monell claims, along with related state-law claims.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana limited discovery to the issue of qualified immunity. The district court concluded that there was no question of material fact as to whether there was an underlying constitutional violation of either Hankins’ right to be free from an unlawful seizure or his right to be free from excessive, unlawful force. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all federal claims, as each federal claim relied on an underlying constitutional violation. The court also declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed those without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that material fact disputes precluded summary judgment on the seizure claim. The court held that the factors relied upon by the district court, such as the car’s registration information, the time of night, and the car driving slowly, did not amount to reasonable suspicion when considered in the totality of the circumstances. The court also noted that Hankins’ testimony that Officer Wheeler said, “you know, three young men, in a nice car, in this neighborhood,” if credited, would undermine the officers’ justification for the stop. The Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on the seizure claim, vacated the summary judgment on the other federal claims, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hankins v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Karl Von Derhaar, an employee at the New Orleans Crime Lab, raised concerns about safety breaches and inaccuracies in a drug-testing method. Instead of addressing these concerns, the Lab mandated that all employees, including Von Derhaar, be tested using the disputed method. Von Derhaar requested unpaid leave, and his supervisor, Sergeant Michael Stalbert, attempted to contact him at home. After initially going to the wrong apartment, Stalbert returned with two armed officers. Von Derhaar, standing in his doorway, declined to speak with Stalbert, who then forcibly entered the apartment, claiming it was a wellness check. Despite no visible signs of distress, Stalbert ordered Von Derhaar out of his home, where another supervisor, Lieutenant Kim Williams, awaited. Von Derhaar was then taken to the Police Integrity Bureau (PIB) headquarters against his will.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana reviewed the case. The court granted summary judgment to the City of New Orleans and its police superintendent on all claims, finding no municipal liability. On the search claim, the court granted summary judgment to Williams and Officer Khalid Watson but denied it to Stalbert. On the seizure claim, the court denied summary judgment to Stalbert, Williams, and Khalid Watson. These decisions led to the current appeals and cross-appeals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the appeals regarding the denial of summary judgment to Stalbert on punitive damages, the summary judgment to Khalid Watson on the search claim, and the summary judgment to the City and superintendent. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Stalbert on the search and seizure claims, finding material fact disputes. However, it reversed the denial of summary judgment to Williams and Khalid Watson on the seizure claim, concluding that they acted under orders and did not violate clearly established law. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Von Derhaar v. Watson" on Justia Law

Dobbin Plantersville Water Supply Corporation (Dobbin) held a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to provide water service in certain areas of Texas. Dobbin, a recipient of federal loans under 7 U.S.C. § 1926, which grants monopoly protection to loan recipients, faced decertification petitions from developers SIG Magnolia L.P. and Redbird Development L.L.C. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) granted these petitions, finding that Dobbin was not providing actual water service to the developers' properties. Dobbin then filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing that the Texas Water Code section allowing decertification was preempted by federal law.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Dobbin's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the PUC officials, concluding they were not appropriate defendants under § 1983. At the summary judgment stage, the district court dismissed Dobbin's remaining claims with prejudice, primarily on jurisdictional grounds. The court found that Dobbin lacked a cause of action against the developers and that an injunction against the PUC would not redress Dobbin's injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Dobbin lacked standing to seek an injunction against the PUC officials because such relief would not redress its injuries. The court also upheld the dismissal of Dobbin's § 1983 claim against the PUC officials, reiterating that state officials in their official capacities are not "persons" under § 1983. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss Dobbin's claims against the developers with prejudice, as Dobbin lacked a viable cause of action against them. View "Dobbin Plantersville Water Supply Corporation v. Lake" on Justia Law

Joel Francois Jean was incarcerated in Texas since 2009 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. At sentencing, he was classified as a career offender due to three prior Texas controlled-substance convictions, resulting in a Guidelines range of 352 to 425 months, but he received a 292-month sentence. Subsequent legal decisions (Mathis v. United States, United States v. Hinkle, and United States v. Tanksley) redefined what constitutes a controlled-substance offense, meaning Jean would not be classified as a career offender if sentenced today.Jean filed a motion for compassionate release in 2023, arguing that changes in the law, sentence disparities, and his rehabilitation warranted release. The district court found that the non-retroactive changes in the law, combined with Jean's extraordinary rehabilitation, constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. The court noted Jean's significant efforts towards self-improvement and the support he received from Bureau of Prisons officials. Consequently, Jean was resentenced to time served, followed by eight years of supervised release.The United States appealed the district court's decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's grant of compassionate release. The appellate court held that district courts have the discretion to consider non-retroactive changes in the law, along with other factors such as extraordinary rehabilitation, when determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for compassionate release. The court emphasized that this discretion is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and Congressional intent, and noted that the Sentencing Commission's November 1, 2023 Amendments support this interpretation. View "USA v. Jean" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Shanita Terrell, alleges that two deputies from the Harris County Sheriff’s Office forced her into a patrol car, and one of them sexually assaulted her. The deputies were off-duty but were in uniform and using patrol vehicles while working side jobs at a bar. Terrell woke up the next morning at home with pain in her vaginal area and no memory of having sex. A DNA test revealed that semen in her underwear matched one of the deputies, Michael Hines. Hines was later charged with sexually assaulting Terrell.Terrell sued Deputy Hines, Deputy Mark Cannon, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, and Harris County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed her claims against Cannon, Gonzalez, and Harris County for failing to state a claim. Terrell appealed the dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Terrell failed to establish that Deputy Cannon violated a clearly established constitutional right. She also failed to allege the type of pattern of deliberate indifference required to establish liability for the County or its Sheriff. The court also dismissed Terrell's supervisory and municipal liability claims against Sheriff Gonzalez and Harris County, respectively. The court concluded that Terrell's allegations were insufficient to show a failure-to-train policy or a widespread pattern of misconduct. View "Terrell v. Harris County" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of self-described "lawful and peaceful protestors" who sued the City of Dallas, Dallas County, and the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations stemming from their participation in the George Floyd demonstrations in Dallas. The plaintiffs claimed that they were wrongfully arrested and mistreated by the police during the protests. They also alleged that the City of Dallas had a policy of failing to adequately discipline its police officers, which led to their constitutional rights being violated.The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the City, the County, and the Sheriff’s Office. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their municipal liability claims against the City, arguing that the district court erred in doing so.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to show that the City of Dallas had a persistent and widespread practice of failing to discipline its police officers that amounted to deliberate indifference. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the City's alleged failure to discipline and the violation of their rights. Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that General Order 609.00, an official policy relating to mass arrests, was unconstitutional on its face. The court concluded that the policy did not affirmatively allow or compel unconstitutional conduct. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against the City of Dallas. View "Verastique v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

The case involves Holston Banks, a convicted prisoner, who sued John Spence for excessive use of force in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The incident occurred in 2017, and Banks filed his lawsuit in October 2019. In April 2022, Spence moved to extend the deadline for filing an amended pleading, which was initially set for May 2, 2022. The court denied the motion but later extended the deadline to May 25, 2022, after a joint motion for an agreed amended scheduling order. On May 24, Spence filed an amended answer to Banks's complaint.Spence moved for judgment on the pleadings in September, arguing that Banks's Fourteenth Amendment claim was not applicable to convicted prisoners. He also claimed that Banks failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Banks's counsel became aware of the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment distinction in August. On October 6, 134 days after the deadline and 38 days after Banks's counsel became aware of the issue, Banks moved to amend his claim to assert an Eighth Amendment claim. The district court denied the motion and granted judgment on the pleadings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court applied the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires the party seeking relief to show that the deadlines could not reasonably be met despite their diligence. The court found that Banks's counsel's failure to understand the applicable law until after the deadline had passed was not an adequate explanation for the delay in amending the claim. The court cited previous cases where a lack of explanation for delay was sufficient to deny amendment. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of Banks's motion to amend. View "Banks v. Spence" on Justia Law