Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After defendant, a Mississippi school attendance officer, swore an arrest warrant affidavit against plaintiff for failure to ensure a child attended school, plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant violated her Fourth Amendment rights because the affidavit lacked probable cause under Malley v. Briggs and was untruthful under Franks v. Delaware. The district court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.The Fifth Circuit affirmed as to the Malley claim and held that the affidavit lacked any facts to establish probable cause. However, the court reversed as to the Franks claim because it was incompatible with a Malley theory. The court held that a plaintiff cannot hold an officer liable under Franks for intentionally omitting important exculpatory information from a warrant affidavit when the officer has also committed a Malley violation by presenting a facially deficient warrant affidavit to the issuing judge. View "Blake v. Lambert" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that officers had violated her son's, Gavrila Dupuis-Mays, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and held that the officers did not violate Dupuis-Mays's constitutional rights and were entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful detention claim. Furthermore, even assuming the officers did violate Dupuis-Mays's constitutional rights, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that clearly established law put the officers on notice that their conduct was illegal. Rather, established law in this circuit suggested that the officers were acting legally by relying on the representations of credible persons that Dupuis-Mays met the statutory requirements for apprehension.The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that the officers violated Dupuis-Mays's Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force to restrain him in the triage room. In this case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the officers violated clearly established law by moving Dupuis-Mays—who was increasingly aggravated, repeatedly spitting at the officers, and failing to comply with instructions to stop—to the floor, even though he collided with a cabinet on the way down. Finally, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that they prepared false police reports. View "Rich v. Palko" on Justia Law

After William Shepherd was shot and killed by a police officer, plaintiff filed suit alleging excessive force claims against the officer and the city. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants and held that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer's use of deadly force was reasonable. In this case, the officer was responding to a 911 call to assist the fire department at Shepherd's home. Shepherd had a knife in his hand and was moving towards the officer, disregarding the officer's command to get back.The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to supplement her brief in opposition to summary judgment, because she offered no explanation for why the supplemental materials were not included in the first brief and she fell far short of demonstrating that there was good cause for receiving a schedule adjustment to permit supplemental briefing. View "Shepherd v. City of Shreveport" on Justia Law

A state does not inflict cruel and unusual punishment by declining to provide sex reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate. Plaintiff, a transgender Texas prison inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), filed suit challenging TDCJ Policy G-51.11 as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, both facially and as applied. Plaintiff contended that Policy G-51.11 amounted to systematic deliberate indifference to his medical needs, because it prevented TDCJ from even considering whether sex reassignment surgery was medically necessary for him. The district court granted summary judgment for the Director of TDCJ based on the merits of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff failed to present a genuine dispute of material fact concerning TDCJ's deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment where, as here, the claim concerned treatment over which there exists on-going controversy within the medical community. As the First Circuit concluded in Kosilek v. Spencer, 774 F.3d 63, 76–78, 87–89, 96 (1st Cir. 2014) (en banc), there was no consensus in the medical community about the necessity and efficacy of sex reassignment surgery as a treatment for gender dysphoria. The court also held that plaintiff could not state a claim for cruel and unusual punishment under the plain text and original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, regardless of any facts he might have presented in the event of remand. The court held that it could not be cruel and unusual to deny treatment that no other prison has ever provided. View "Gibson v. Collier" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a death row inmate, petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of prohibition seeking to prohibit his execution until the state allowed his preferred spiritual advisor -- a Buddhist priest -- to be physically present in the execution chamber at the time of execution. After the petition was denied, plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint and a motion for stay of execution with the federal district court. The district court denied the motion for stay of execution as untimely and plaintiff appealed.The Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that the district court rightfully recognized that the proper time for raising such claims has long since passed. In this case, plaintiff's execution date was set on November 29, 2018; by his counsel's admission, he waited until February 28 to first request that the state allow his preferred spiritual advisor to not just meet with him prior to entering the chamber and watch from the viewing room, but actually enter the execution chamber with him; then he waited until March 20 -- eight days before the scheduled execution -- to raise his First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act claims; and these claims were not brought before the federal courts until March 26. The court also took note, as did the district court, of the multiple warnings plaintiff's counsel has received in the past for filing last-minute motions. View "Murphy v. Collier" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of attorneys' fees in plaintiff's action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although the district court correctly determined that Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992), provided the relevant legal framework in this case, the court held that the district court was in the best position to determine whether this lawsuit achieved a compensable public goal justifying a fee award. Plaintiff argued that this was an unusual case justifying a fee award because the litigation secured an ASL interpreter for Nelson Arce, achieved recognition of the rights of deaf probationers and prisoners to disability accommodations, deterred future ADA violations, and prompted necessary reforms in the defendants' policies toward deaf individuals. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Shelton v. Louisiana State" on Justia Law

After a jury found in plaintiff's favor in an action alleging that she was fired because of her race and sex, it awarded her just $1. The district court then denied plaintiff both reinstatement and front pay, leaving her with no remedy.The court held that the district court should not have considered two of the four factors it relied on in denying reinstatement, and thus the court could not review its conclusion that plaintiff's reinstatement would not further the remedial goals of Title VII. Therefore, the court remanded for further proceedings without suggesting how the district court should exercise its discretion based on the two factors that remain or other permissible considerations that the district court may find relevant. View "Bogan v. MTD Consumer Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a criminal investigator, for false arrest under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant knowingly or recklessly misstated material facts in the affidavit in support of a warrant for the arrest of plaintiff for allegedly communicating a false report. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that, although the validity of the arrest could not be saved by facts stated in the warrant sufficient to establish probable cause for a different charge from that sought in the warrant, defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because this was not clearly established at the time of his conduct. View "Arizmendi v. Gabbert" on Justia Law

After the district court found that the boundaries for Mississippi State Senate District 22 dilute African-American voting strength and prevented those citizens from having the equal opportunity "to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice" that the Voting Rights Act guarantees, the district court switched 28 precincts between District 22 and a bordering district to remedy the violation. The Governor and Secretary of State sought a stay of the district court's final judgment.The Fourth Circuit granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for a stay. The court held that the rule of construction, the text of the three-judge statute, its lineage, and the caselaw applying it all favor the district court's view that three judges are not required for a claim raising only statutory challenges to state legislative redistricting. The court also held that defendants have not shown a high likelihood of overturning the finding of vote dilution because their legal argument was at odds with "unimpeachable authority" from this court and their factual challenges must overcome deferential standards of review. The court rejected defendants' laches claim.However, the court held that the legislature should have the initial opportunity to draw new lines for District 22 that comply with the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the court issued an order granting a temporary stay to allow the legislature to remedy the Section 2 violation. Finally, the court held that defendants have not demonstrated a high likelihood of showing that the district court's narrow redraw was an abuse of discretion, and there was no risk of voter confusion and no outcry from state officials that implementing the district court’s remedy substantially disturbed its election process. View "Thomas v. Bryant" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was fired from her tenured professorship by the Board of LSU, she filed suit against defendants alleging that they violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment right to free speech and academic freedom, and her Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights. Plaintiff also alleged a facial challenge to LSU's sexual harassment policies.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's as-applied challenge and held that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's speech was not protected by the First Amendment. In this case, plaintiff's speech was not a matter of public concern, because the use of profanity and discussion of professors' and students' sex lives were clearly not related to the training of Pre-K–Third grade teachers. The court vacated plaintiff's facial challenge and held that she failed to sue the proper party, the Board of Supervisors, which is responsible for the creation and enforcement of the policies at issue. Although the court need not address the district court's holding on qualified immunity because plaintiff's claims failed, the court nevertheless affirmed that all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on her damages claims. View "Buchanan v. Alexander" on Justia Law