Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants - various prison officials, the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC), and Plaintiff's prison physician - and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Plaintiff, an inmate at MCI-Concord in Massachusetts, brought this pro se complaint challenging the termination of his access to the prison's first-floor Lexis Nexis terminal and typewriter, where Plaintiff spent more than two years conducting legal research and creating legal documents. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff's speculative arguments as to the summary judgment in favor of his prison doctor were not enough to summary judgment; (2) the district court properly found that the DOC defendants' legitimate explanations were not pretextual; and (3) the district court did not err in determining that there was no triable issue of material fact that Defendants subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment by discontinuing Plaintiff's reliance upon the first-floor terminal. View "Snell v. Neville" on Justia Law

The First Circuit resolved a portion of Appellant's appeal in this opinion addressing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, the Brookline Board of Selectmen, the Town's counsel and Human Resources director, and select members of the Board, holding that the summary judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.Plaintiff, black man, brought this suit alleging that during his employment as a firefighter, he had been discriminated against and retaliated against for reporting discriminatory conduct. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the summary judgment granted in favor of Defendants, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff's retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Town, the Board, and certain members of the Board, in their personal and official capacities. The Court then remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Alston v. Town of Brookline, Mass." on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the order of the district court requiring immediate payment of a $10,000 settlement sum by Defendant, the Secretary of Corrections to Puerto Rico, and remanded with instructions to stay Plaintiff's effort to recover on the settlement, holding that the automatic stay provision of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) applied.Plaintiff brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Defendant and others, alleging that the defendants had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs while he was an inmate at the Baymon Correctional Facility. The parties eventually settled for $50,000. At issue was who was responsible to pay the remaining $10,000 of that sum. The district court ordered Defendant, and not the Commonwealth, to pay the balance of the settlement amount. Defendant appealed, arguing that Plaintiff's effort to collect the $10,000 should have been stayed under the automatic stay provision of PROMESA. The First Circuit agreed, holding that, given the manner in which Plaintiff styled his effort to recover, the automatic stay properly applied. View "Colon-Torres v. Negron-Fernandez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit held that the district court correctly denied the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's motions for reconsideration at issue in this appeal insofar as they might be construed as motions to apply an automatic stay under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) to either dismiss a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action or a settlement agreement that had not yet been enforced, holding that the circuit court did not err.This case stemmed from a settlement following a section 1983 suit against a Commonwealth officer in the officer's individual capacity. After the settlement agreement was filed under seal and the district court had dismissed the case with prejudice, and before the first installment of the agreed settlement payments was due, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition for bankruptcy relief on behalf of the Commonwealth under Title III of PROMESA. Appellant filed a motion in opposition, arguing that the automatic stay was not applicable in his case. The district court granted the opposition. The Commonwealth filed a motions for reconsideration, which the district court denied. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying the Commonwealth's motions for reconsideration insofar as they may be construed as motions to apply PROMESA's automatic stay to either the dismiss section 1983 action or the settlement agreement. View "Diaz-Morales v. Rubio-Paredes" on Justia Law

The First Circuit resolved a portion of Appellant's appeal in this opinion addressing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, the Brookeline Board of Selectmen, the Town's counsel and Human Resources director, and select members of the board, holding that the summary judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.Plaintiff, black man, brought this suit alleging that during his employment as a firefighter, he had been discriminated against and retaliated against for reporting discriminatory conduct. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the summary judgment granted in favor of Defendants, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to Plaintiff's retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the Town, the Board, and certain members of the Board, in their personal and official capacities. The Court then remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Alston v. Town of Brookline, Mass." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of Hobbs Act robbery, murdering a person through the use of firearm during a crime of violence, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress identification evidence; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions; and (3) the district court did not err in determining that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c). View "United States v. Seary-Colon" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the the district court's denial of Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.Petitioner pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm and entered into a plea agreement with the government that included a sixty-month sentencing recommendation. At sentencing, the district court imposed a 120-month sentence. The First Circuit affirmed. Thereafter, Petitioner filed this petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to the discrepancy between two versions of events contained in the presentence investigation report. View "Fernandez-Garay v. United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Plaintiff's motion for an injunction preventing the implementation of a plan promulgated by the Boston Public Schools for admitting students to Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and John D. O'Bryant School of Mathematics and Science for the 2021-2022 school year, holding that Plaintiff did not show it was not entitled to the injunction.Plaintiff, a corporation acting on behalf of fourteen parents and children residing in Boston, asserted that the 2021-2022 admissions plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, 5. The district court entered judgment in Defendants' favor. Plaintiff appealed and moved for an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) enjoining Defendants from implementing the plan during the pendency of this appeal. The First Circuit denied the motion, holding that Plaintiff failed to show a strong likelihood that it would prevail on the merits. View "Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. School Committee of City of Boston" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants - the City of Framingham and Chief of the Framingham Police Department - in this Garcetti speech-retaliation and Massachusetts Whistleblower Act action brought by Plaintiff, an FPD detective, holding that the district court did not err.Plaintiff brought this lawsuit challenging allegedly retaliatory employment actions, including a five-day suspension and his being put on paid administrative leave during an investigation. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Defendants met their burden to show that the adverse employment decisions would have occurred despite Plaintiff's protected speech. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Defendants met their burden to prove an independent non-retaliatory basis for Plaintiff's discipline. View "Gutwill v. City of Framingham" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted in Massachusetts of murder in the first degree. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that testimony was erroneously introduced at trial that he had given to a grand jury without being advised of his privilege against self-incrimination. Appellant presented this same argument in his challenge to his conviction on appeal and in his appeal of the denial of his motion for a new trial, all without success. The district court denied Appellant's habeas petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of his grand jury testimony. View "Woods v. Medeiros" on Justia Law