Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

A group of plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis, for their roles in the violent "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to commit racially motivated violence. A jury awarded the plaintiffs over $26 million in damages, including a historic $24 million in punitive damages. However, the district court reduced the punitive damages to $350,000, applying Virginia's punitive damages cap across all plaintiffs.The defendants appealed, challenging the district court's decision to hold them jointly and severally liable for the compensatory damages award. The plaintiffs cross-appealed, challenging the district court's application of Virginia's punitive damages cap.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of joint-and-several liability for the compensatory damages. However, the court held that Virginia's punitive damages cap applies on a per-plaintiff basis, not across all plaintiffs. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's ruling on the punitive damages cap and remanded the case with instructions to apply the cap accordingly. View "Sines v. Hill" on Justia Law

The case involves Erie Insurance Company and its affiliates (collectively, Erie) and the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA). In 2021, the MIA initiated two separate administrative investigations into Erie following complaints alleging racial and geographic discrimination. The first investigation broadly examined Erie’s market conduct, while the second focused on the specific allegations in the individual complaints. In 2023, the MIA issued four public determination letters stating that Erie had violated state insurance laws. These letters referenced documents obtained during the market conduct investigation, which had not yet concluded. Erie requested and was granted administrative hearings on all four determination letters.Erie then filed a lawsuit against the MIA and its commissioner in federal district court, alleging due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violations of Maryland state law. Erie sought a declaration that the determination letters were unlawful, an injunction preventing the defendants from disseminating the letters, and a requirement for the defendants to publicly withdraw them. The district court dismissed Erie's complaint, citing the principles of abstention outlined in Younger v. Harris, which generally discourages federal courts from interfering with ongoing state proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Erie had an adequate opportunity to raise its constitutional claims in the administrative hearings and subsequent state court review, as required for Younger abstention. The court also rejected Erie's argument that this case fell within an exception to Younger abstention due to extraordinary circumstances or unusual situations. The court concluded that Erie had not demonstrated that the MIA's actions were motivated by bias or that the administrative proceedings would not afford Erie constitutionally adequate process. View "Erie Insurance Exchange v. Maryland Insurance Administration" on Justia Law

The case involves Earl Johnson, a former inmate of the Maryland Correctional Training Center, who alleged that corrections officer Chad Zimmerman sexually harassed and abused him during strip searches, in violation of his Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights. Johnson also sued Zimmerman’s supervisor, Lt. Richard Robinette, alleging supervisory and bystander liability. The district court dismissed Johnson’s claims against Robinette due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies but held that Johnson’s claims against Zimmerman were exempt from this requirement. The court also granted summary judgment to Zimmerman and Robinette on the merits of Johnson’s claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding that Johnson’s claims against Robinette were subject to exhaustion requirements. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to both defendants. The court found that the strip searches, including those involving momentary touchings of Johnson’s genitalia or buttocks, did not rise to the level of an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that Johnson failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Zimmerman had the requisite malicious intent to sexually abuse him, sexually arouse him or himself, or otherwise gratify sexual desire. Furthermore, the court found that Johnson’s evidence fell short of establishing supervisory or bystander liability against Robinette. View "Johnson v. Robinette" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Angela Singleton, a former employee of the Maryland Technology Development Corporation (TEDCO), who filed a lawsuit against TEDCO alleging sex- and race-based discrimination and retaliation. TEDCO, an entity created by the State of Maryland to promote economic development, argued that it was an "arm of the State" and therefore immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suits brought in federal court. Singleton countered that TEDCO was essentially a series of social impact and venture funds overseen by the corporation and did not qualify as an arm of the State.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed Singleton's complaint, agreeing with TEDCO's argument that it was indeed an arm of the State and therefore entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Singleton appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that although the State of Maryland was not legally obligated to pay TEDCO's debts, it was practically responsible for the entity's solvency. The court also noted that the State exercised significant control over TEDCO, that TEDCO's concerns were statewide, and that the State treated TEDCO substantially as an agency. Therefore, the court concluded that TEDCO was an arm of the State and protected from Singleton's suit by the Eleventh Amendment. View "Singleton v. Maryland Technology and Development Corporation" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Caron Nazario, an Army officer, against a judgment following a jury trial in the Eastern District of Virginia. Nazario claimed he was mistreated by police officers Joe Gutierrez and Daniel Crocker during a traffic stop. The district court ruled that the officers had probable cause to arrest Nazario for three Virginia misdemeanor offenses, which Nazario contends was an error. This error, according to Nazario, resulted in the court incorrectly awarding the officers qualified immunity on three of his constitutional claims and improperly instructing the jury on probable cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the court’s award of qualified immunity to defendant Gutierrez on Nazario’s Fourth Amendment claim for an unreasonable seizure. The court found that the officers had probable cause for a traffic infraction and a misdemeanor obstruction of justice, but not for the misdemeanor offenses of “eluding” or “failure to obey a conservator of the peace.” The court also ruled that Gutierrez's death threats against Nazario were a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, and thus, he was not entitled to qualified immunity on the unreasonable seizure claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Nazario v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The case involves Angel Cartagena, an inmate in the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC) prison system, who challenged the conditions of his 18-month confinement at the River North Correctional Center. Cartagena alleged that his confinement was too restrictive and caused him emotional distress and severe mental anguish, in violation of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as statutory prohibitions against discrimination. VDOC officials had determined that Cartagena was seriously mentally ill and unable to function in the general prison population, so they assigned him to the VDOC’s Secure Diversionary Treatment Program (SDT Program) at the River North facility. Cartagena refused to comply with the treatment regimen prescribed for him and complained about the consequential restrictions of the Program.The district court granted the prison officials’ motion to dismiss Cartagena’s complaint, concluding that Cartagena had failed to state plausible claims for relief. The court found that Cartagena had not sufficiently alleged a deliberate indifference by prison officials to his condition, the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest, or discrimination because of his disability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Cartagena failed to demonstrate the required mens rea for an Eighth Amendment violation, as the prison officials had offered him treatment, which he refused. The court also found that Cartagena failed to adequately allege a cognizable liberty interest in his placement in the SDT Program, and therefore, the Due Process Clause requires no process related to his placement in the Program. Finally, the court concluded that Cartagena failed to plausibly allege that he was “otherwise qualified” for the benefits that he seeks and therefore to state a claim for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. View "Cartagena v. Lovell" on Justia Law

The case involves Terrance Henderson, an inmate in the Virginia Department of Corrections, who filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent prison officials from deducting money from his prison trust account as restitution for an assault he committed on a fellow inmate in 2015. He also sought to compel the return of money already taken. Henderson claimed that the nearly six-year gap between the guilt-finding phase of his disciplinary hearing and his reconvened restitution hearing violated principles of due process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the defendants on Henderson's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and dismissed his Virginia state-law claim without prejudice. Henderson appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court agreed that Henderson had a protected property interest in his prison trust account. However, the court found that even if the nearly six-year delay between the guilt-finding phase and the restitution hearing violated due process, the error was harmless because no evidence that could have aided Henderson's ability to contest the amount of restitution was lost due to the delay. The court also affirmed the district court's decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. View "Henderson v. Harmon" on Justia Law

Leslie Atkinson purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche through a retail installment sales contract, which granted the seller a security interest in the vehicle. The seller assigned the sales contract and the security interest to Credit Acceptance Corporation. When Atkinson defaulted on her payments, Credit Acceptance hired Carolina Repo to repossess the vehicle. During the repossession, Atkinson attempted to drive off in the vehicle, leading to a confrontation with the Carolina Repo representative. The representative called the Harnett County Sheriff’s Office for assistance, and Deputy Brent Godfrey arrived on the scene. Godfrey ordered Atkinson out of the vehicle so that the Carolina Repo representative could repossess it.Atkinson sued Godfrey and Sheriff Wayne Coats under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She claimed that Godfrey, in his individual capacity, violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures of property by facilitating Carolina Repo’s repossession. She also alleged that Coats, in his official capacity as the sheriff, failed to train officers and created policies that deprived her of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures of property.The defendants moved to dismiss Atkinson’s § 1983 claim, asserting that Atkinson did not allege facts showing they acted under color of law, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that, without an underlying constitutional violation, Atkinson failed to bring an actionable claim against the Sheriff’s Office through Coats in his official capacity. The district court denied the motion, finding it could not determine as a matter of law that Godfrey’s actions did not constitute state action, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the Sheriff’s Office’s liability could be ruled out. Godfrey and Coats appealed the district court’s denial of their motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Godfrey’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court found that neither the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the highest court of North Carolina, nor a consensus of other circuit courts of appeals had determined that conduct similar to that of Godfrey was unconstitutional. Therefore, the right alleged to be violated was not clearly established. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant Godfrey’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the appeal with respect to the claim against Coats, as the issues it presented were not inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the qualified immunity issues. View "Atkinson v. Godfrey" on Justia Law

The case involves David Thurston, a registered sex offender, who moved to Avery County, North Carolina, where Kevin Frye served as Sheriff and Lee Buchanan was the Deputy in charge of sex-offender registrations. Thurston informed Sheriff Frye that he had been invited to his nephew’s wedding in Spokane, Washington, and sought advice on how to comply with the law and asked for permission to attend the wedding. Sheriff Frye gave Thurston permission to travel and instructed him to email a copy of his Washington visitor-registration form within ten days of his arrival. However, while Thurston was away, the Sheriff’s Office mailed his verification form. Thurston contacted Sheriff Frye for guidance, but Sheriff Frye never responded. Deputy Buchanan began investigating Thurston and obtained a warrant alleging three different criminal violations. Thurston was arrested upon his return to North Carolina.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina denied the officers' motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their arrest of Thurston did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The officers appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Thurston’s arrest was unconstitutional and that the officers failed to prove that they acted objectively reasonably in seeking Thurston’s arrest warrant. The court also concluded that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because Thurston’s right to be free from unlawful arrest was clearly established. View "Thurston v. Frye" on Justia Law

A West Virginia law, known as the "Save Women's Sports Act," stipulates that athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls shall not be open to students of the male sex, with "male" defined as an individual whose biological sex determined at birth is male. The law was challenged by a 13-year-old transgender girl, B.P.J., who has been taking puberty-blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since the third grade. B.P.J. argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX by preventing her from participating in her school's cross country and track teams.The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia initially granted a preliminary injunction, allowing B.P.J. to participate in her school's sports teams. However, upon review of cross-motions for summary judgment, the court reversed its decision, rejecting B.P.J.'s claims and ruling that the law was constitutional and did not violate Title IX.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the law could not lawfully be applied to prevent B.P.J. from participating in her school's sports teams. The court found that the law's sole purpose and effect were to prevent transgender girls from playing on girls' teams, which was not substantially related to an important government interest. The court also found that the law violated Title IX by treating B.P.J. worse than people to whom she was similarly situated, depriving her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and doing so on the basis of sex. The court dismissed the cross-appeal, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions to enter summary judgment for B.P.J. on her Title IX claims. View "B.P.J. v. West Virginia State Board of Education" on Justia Law