Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court determined that the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, collateral estoppel, the statute of limitations, qualified immunity, and lack of standing. The district court also dismissed some claims for failure to state a claim.The court concluded that, under both federal and Connecticut law, the issue at the core of the parties' dispute is whether DCF reasonably accommodated plaintiffs' actual or perceived disabilities in providing services and programs to assist their reunification with their children. The court explained that the issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined by Connecticut courts. Therefore, the district court correctly granted DCF's motion to dismiss on collateral estoppel grounds. The court did not reach the merits of the parties' arguments regarding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Connecticut's statute of limitations, or plaintiffs' standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. View "Watley v. Department of Children and Families" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and various officers and officials, after confrontations with the officers during Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in 2012. Plaintiff alleged that the City violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) in failing to reasonably accommodate her epilepsy by timely administering medication during her pre-arraignment detention following her arrest, and that Sergeants Giovanni Mattera and Thomas McManus committed assault and battery under New York law when, during separate demonstrations, each officer used force against plaintiff.The Second Circuit concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on the ADA claim because there was no evidence demonstrating the City delayed administering medication "by reason of" plaintiff's disability, as required under the statute. In regard to the state law assault and battery claims, the court held that the district court correctly determined, contrary to plaintiff's contention, that a justification instruction was warranted on those claims because New York law permits a police officer, even in a non-arrest situation, to use an objectively reasonable degree of force in the performance of a public duty, including crowd control. However, the court concluded that the district court, in providing that justification charge, erroneously instructed the jury that it could consider an officer's subjective intent, which is contrary to New York's objective reasonableness inquiry. Furthermore, although the error was prejudicial as it relates to the assault and battery claims involving Sergeant Mattera and warrants a new trial, the error was harmless as to the claims against Sergeant McManus given that his subjective good faith was never raised, or even at issue, during the trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Tardif v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against the New York Times. Plaintiff alleged defamation based on the Times's print and online articles about gender bias, favoritism, and groping at the Justice Department. The article details a Times investigation into a series of complaints, using records derived from an EEOC complaint and a sex discrimination and retaliation suit. One of the declarations described an incident between plaintiff and an intern. Plaintiff alleged that the language from this declaration was false and defamatory per se and that the fair report privilege did not apply.The court concluded that the district court performed the proper choice-of-law analysis, applying New York law to the conflict; correctly reasoned that New York was the state with the most significant interests in the litigation and applied New York's fair report privilege; and then properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint as barred by the fair report privilege because the alleged defamatory statement was attributed to an official proceeding. View "Kinsey v. New York Times Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and Church United filed suit against Vimeo, alleging that the company discriminated against them by deleting Church United’s account from its online video hosting platform. Plaintiffs claimed that Vimeo discriminated against them based on sexual orientation and religion under federal and state law. The district court concluded that Vimeo deleted Church United's account because of its violation of one of Vimeo's content policies barring the promotion of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) on its platform.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, agreeing with the district court that Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act provides Vimeo with immunity from suit. The court concluded that, under Section 230(c)(2), Vimeo is free to restrict access to material that, in good faith, it finds objectionable. In this case, plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of bad faith do not survive the pleadings stage, especially when examined in the context of Section 230(c)(2). The court explained that Section 230(c)(2) does not require interactive service providers to use a particular method of content restriction, nor does it mandate perfect enforcement of a platform's content policies. Indeed, the fundamental purpose of Section 230(c)(2) is to provide platforms like Vimeo with the discretion to identify and remove what they consider objectionable content from their platforms without incurring liability for each decision. View "Domen v. Vimeo, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a prisoner serving a life sentence in Connecticut's Northern Correctional Institute, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the conditions of his confinement violate his rights under Article I, Section 10 (the Bill of Attainder Clause) of the Constitution, as well as the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. On appeal, current and former Connecticut Department of Correction officials appeal the district court's judgment and permanent injunction principally granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendants' motion for summary judgment.The Second Circuit held that the district court erred by deciding disputed issues of material fact in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on his claims under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; the district court correctly concluded that, with respect to plaintiff, Conn. Gen. Stat. 18-10b is an unconstitutional bill of attainder; and plaintiff's unreviewable classification score of Risk Level 5 violates his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the difference in his treatment compared to that of other similarly-situated inmates lacks a rational basis. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Reynolds v. Quiros" on Justia Law

The Attorney General of the State of New York (OAG) appealed the district court's order denying it a preliminary injunction against defendants relating to their protest activities in violation of the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), the New York Clinic Access Act (NYSCAA), and the New York City Clinic Access Act (the City Act). Defendants appealed from the district court's order denying the OAG a preliminary injunction, challenging the district court's conclusion that FACE and its analogs are not facially unconstitutional and arguing that the City Act's follow-and-harass and clinic-interference provisions are void for vagueness. Defendants also challenged the district court's conclusions that the OAG has parens patriae standing to sue under the City Act and that Defendant George violated FACE, NYSCAA, and the City Act by physically obstructing patients.The Second Circuit vacated and remanded in part, concluding that the district court made certain improper evidentiary and credibility rulings, relied on clearly erroneous factual findings in assessing the OAG's physical obstruction claims, erred in its interpretation of the FACE statute and its state and local analogs, and abused its discretion in finding no irreparable harm. The court affirmed as to the remainder. In regard to the cross-appeal, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Defendant George violated FACE, NYSCAA, and the City Act by physically obstructing patients; the statutes do not violate the First Amendment; and the OAG has parens patriae standing to sue under the City Act. View "People of the State of New York v. Griepp" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity on plaintiff's unlawful search and seizure claims. The court concluded that defendants violated clearly established law by detaining and frisking plaintiff based on nothing more than an officer's unconfirmed hunch that there might be an open warrant for plaintiff's arrest. In this case, police officers stopped plaintiff and his daughters as they walked out of a Target store. Although the officers admittedly had no reason to think plaintiff had committed a crime, one officer speculated that there "might be" a warrant for plaintiff's arrest. The court explained that the officers clearly lacked any facts giving them reasonable suspicion that plaintiff was involved in criminal activity (much less carrying a dangerous weapon) or wanted for a crime. View "Vasquez v. Maloney" on Justia Law

The State of New York enacted new party-qualification requirements in the spring of 2020, requiring political organizations to earn the greater of 130,000 votes or 2 percent of the vote in elections for President and for Governor to achieve party status and the automatic place on the ballot it confers. In this appeal, the SAM Party and its chairman challenged the district court's denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction against the party-qualification requirements.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that appellants are not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim because the burden imposed by the presidential-election requirement is (1) not severe and (2) justified by the State's interest in uncluttered ballots, effective electoral competition, and the preservation of resources dedicated to public financing of elections. Therefore, the district court appropriately denied the SAM Party's motion for a preliminary injunction. View "SAM Party of New York v. Kosinski" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants unlawfully used photographs of them to advertise strip clubs owned by defendants in violation of New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding that plaintiffs signed full releases of their rights to the photographs.The Second Circuit concluded that the terms of Plaintiff Shake and Hinton's release agreements are disputed material facts, and defendants concede that neither they nor the third-party contractors that created and published the advertisements secured legal rights to use any of the photographs at issue. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants and in denying summary judgment to plaintiffs on liability. Therefore, the court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings.The court affirmed in part and held that the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs had not accepted the offer of judgment because the offer's settlement amount term was ambiguous, the parties disagreed over how to interpret the term, and there was accordingly no meeting of the minds. Finally, the court held that the district court correctly dismissed the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), New York General Business Law Section 349, and libel claims. View "Electra v. 59 Murray Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Connecticut inmate, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendant and other Connecticut state officials, alleging deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights. A jury found defendant liable for violating plaintiff's constitutional rights and awarded plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. At issue in this appeal is the satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment. After the judgment became final, the State voluntarily undertook to satisfy the judgment on defendant's behalf. In doing so, the State took actions against plaintiff under Connecticut law to recoup portions of the payment.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on plaintiff's "motion for aid of judgment" and "motion to unfreeze assets," as well as defendant's motion for reconsideration and "motion for credit against judgment." The court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the district court's ruling that defendant's debt to plaintiff had not been satisfied. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that Connecticut's actions were preempted by section 1983. In this case, the court found no error in the district court's conclusion that the State's attempt to discharge defendant's judgment obligations in significant part through payments to itself and payments to plaintiffs that the state might eventually recoup undermines the objectives of section 1983. Likewise, defendant's motion for reconsideration also failed for the same reasons as the district court's ruling on plaintiff's post-judgment motions. Finally, defendant waived his challenge to the district court's denial in part of his motion for credit against judgment. View "Williams v. Marinelli" on Justia Law