Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Novak created a “farcical Facebook account” that looked like the Parma Police Department’s official page. The page was up for 12 hours and published posts including a recruitment advertisement that “strongly encourag[ed] minorities to not apply.” and an advertisement for a “Pedophile Reform" event. Some of its about 100 followers thought it was funny. Others were angry or confused and called the police station. The Department posted a warning on its official Facebook page. Novak reposted that warning on his page, to “deepen his satire.” Novak deleted “pedantic comments” on his page explaining that the page was fake, The Department contacted Facebook requesting that the page be shut down and informed local news outlets. Novak deleted his creation. Based on a search warrant and subpoena, Facebook disclosed that Novak was behind the fake. The police obtained warrants to search Novak’s apartment and to arrest him, stating that Novak unlawfully impaired the department’s functions. Novak responded that, other than 12 minutes of phone calls, the police department suffered no disruption. Novak was acquitted, then sued, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights. The district court dismissed in part, with 26 claims remaining. The Sixth Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity on claims related to anonymous speech, censorship in a public forum, and the right to receive speech were dismissed. View "Novak v. City of Parma" on Justia Law

In 1996, Montgomery was sexually assaulted and murdered in her Kalkaska, Michigan home. Months later, 22-year-old Peterson was in jail on an unrelated charge. Another inmate informed officers that Peterson had made an incriminating statement about the Montgomery crime. Peterson claims that he suffered from brain damage, mental illness, and severe depression, was on suicide watch, and that the defendants knew of Peterson’s disabilities. Peterson initially denied involvement, but after nine interrogations and several polygraph examinations, Peterson confessed. A week later, DNA results showed that Peterson’s DNA was not a match for a vaginal semen sample. Peterson was convicted. In 2013, Peterson’s attorneys obtained new DNA test results that excluded Peterson as a contributor to a previously-inconclusive sample from the victim’s shirt. Peterson’s conviction was vacated in 2014. Peterson filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The officers each raised qualified immunity, arguing Peterson was collaterally estopped from relitigating the voluntariness of his confession, which the Michigan trial court had determined was admissible. The district court rejected that argument and denied the defendants qualified immunity, absolute witness immunity, and governmental immunity. The Sixth Circuit affirmed with respect to two officers but reversed with respect to one officer, who was not alleged to have participated in the interrogations. The court reversed the decision to deny governmental immunity to the county. The state court ruling regarding the confession was vacated with the conviction. View "Peterson v. Heymes" on Justia Law

A 2004 Ohio statute regulated the "off-label" prescription of mifepristone (RU-486), which is commonly used in conjunction with misoprostol, to induce first-trimester abortions without surgery. Planned Parenthood challenged the statute under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction “insofar as it prohibits unconstitutional applications of the [statute].” In 2006, the district court entered a permanent injunction. After the Ohio Supreme Court answered certified questions, the Sixth Circuit remanded for a determination regarding the injunction’s scope. In 2011, the district court clarified that the statute was enjoined only as it applied to instances where the health of the patient was at risk and denied broader relief, leaving one remaining claim. In 2016, the FDA amended its approval and label for mifepristone, authorizing the off-label uses at issue. The statute remains in force, requiring physicians to prescribe medication abortion according to the FDA’s updated approval. Planned Parenthood sought $10,365.35 to cover costs for litigation on the merits and attorneys’ fees at 2016 rates to offset lost interest. Using this rate, the requested fees for the preliminary injunction litigation totaled $372,164.63. The district court granted that request, finding the requested hours and rates reasonable. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that Planned Parenthood does not properly qualify as a “prevailing party” because its relief was narrow and preliminary; that the court erred in refusing to apply a blanket fee reduction based on the degree of success; and that the court erred in applying 2016 rates rather than 2006 rates The court properly engaged in a contextual, case-specific review, considered the aims of section 1988, and adequately explained its rationale. View "Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region v. DeWine" on Justia Law

Fairness Campaign e-mailed a press release, stating that it would protest at the KFB-sponsored annual Ham Breakfast at the Kentucky State Fair, describing KFB’s policies as “anti-LGBT, anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-choice, and pro-death penalty.” Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) require 72 hours’ notice to the Fairgrounds, after which protestors “have to receive a permit … with the specifics of . . . where, [and] the number of people.” Although Campaign did not abide by the KAR, Fairgrounds officials decided to “allow the protest … but to keep it in an area that did not disrupt any services,” choosing an area of the parking lot based on handicap-accessible parking. The next morning, 24 Campaign members arrived and were told that, inside the protest zone, they could use signs, megaphones, “the whole nine yards” but could not disrupt the Breakfast when they went inside. Campaign members presented their tickets and entered the Breakfast without restriction. They were seated at tables farthest from the speakers. After the opening invocation, they simultaneously rose and stood at their tables silently. This action led to their arrest. Some were handcuffed, some had to be forced to leave. All the charges against the protestors were dismissed. Protestors filed suit under 42 U.S.C.1983, alleging Fourth Amendment false arrest and malicious prosecution and First Amendment free speech and retaliatory arrest claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The protest zone, inside the Fairgrounds' ticketed area, was a limited public forum; Fairgrounds had a legitimate, viewpoint-neutral reason for designating a protest zone and the restrictions were reasonable. Plaintiffs knew that the Breakfast was a private event and were unequivocal that their intention to cause disruptions, Defendants had probable cause to make the arrests. View "Hartman v. Thompson" on Justia Law

A jury determined that four Muslim Michigan inmates collectively suffered $900 ($150 for each Ramadan the prison officials disrupted) in damages when prison officials did not provide them with adequate meals during Ramadan to accommodate their fasting. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the inmates’ claim that the jury ignored the spiritual harms they suffered. The jury found that the inmates suffered spiritual injuries but, unlike economic injuries, spiritual injuries are hard to quantify. The jury heard the inmates’ testimony and saw their medical records, then weighed all the evidence and concluded that each inmate suffered $150 worth of harm for each Ramadan the prison officials disrupted. The district court did not downplay the inmates’ spiritual injuries nor did it require that the inmates submit medical records to substantiate those injuries; the court merely noted that objective evidence (like medical records) might have helped the jury reach a higher damages calculation. Without such concrete, objective evidence, the district court had no room to disagree with the value that the jury assigned to the inmates’ spiritual damages. View "Heard v. Finco" on Justia Law

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of federal habeas relief to petitioner, who argued that he was entitled to a resentencing hearing, essentially because the guidelines were considered mandatory at the time of his hearing, even though not at the time that his sentence became final. The court held that declining to conduct such a new hearing in this case was not contrary to, nor did it involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Furthermore, there was no constitutional error in the substance of the sentencing court's decision. View "Magnum Reign v. Gidley" on Justia Law

Ohio Revised Code 4123.88 addresses how workers' compensation claimant information is handled and protected by the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation and contains the solicitation ban at issue: “No person shall directly or indirectly solicit authority” (1) to “represent the claimant or employer in respect of” a worker’s compensation “claim or appeal,” or (2) “to take charge of” any such claim or appeal. The district court rejected Bevan's challenge on summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that the state has prohibited all solicitation, whether oral or written, by any person to represent a party with respect to an Ohio workers’ compensation claim or appeal and that such a prophylactic ban violates the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 1988 "Shapero" decision. The court rejected an argument that the constitutionally questionable language is part of a larger statutory scheme that Bevan allegedly violated by obtaining claimant information from the Bureau in an unlawful manner. Whether Bevan violated other statutory provisions governing disclosure of claimant information is not relevant to whether the solicitation ban itself is constitutional. The solicitation ban makes no distinction as to how the person doing the soliciting learned of the claimant’s information: it bans all solicitation regardless of where or how that information was obtained. The prohibition is repugnant to the First Amendment's free speech clause. View "Bevan & Associates, LPA v. Yost" on Justia Law

Berkshire has a long history of mental health issues. Berkshire was incarcerated, 2001-2014, for second-degree home invasion. He began to improve while he was in the Macomb Correctional Facility's Residential Treatment Program (RTP). Berkshire was a Housing Unit Representative on a “Warden’s Forum.” After Berkshire brought complaints, Dr. Dahl unilaterally raised Berkshire’s Global Assessment Functioning score so that Berkshire was ineligible for RTP. Berkshire claims the move was retaliation. Once discharged from RTP, Berkshire deteriorated. Berkshire’s care was overseen by Beauvais, the unit chief of the outpatient mental-health program; Sermo, a psychologist with that program; and Dr. Pozios, a private doctor working for the government. Berkshire had homicidal thoughts and engaged in self-injury. Eventually, Berkshire attempted suicide; Beauvais and Sermo transferred Berkshire to a Crisis Stabilization Program, stating that they “could not transfer [Berkshire] to Mars.” Berkshire claims that the three exhibited deliberate indifference to Berkshire’s serious medical needs. After Berkshire attempted suicide, he was restrained. When Berkshire requested a bathroom break. Sergeant Nelson told Berkshire to “hold it” and that he was going to “stay just like that until [his] mental illness goes away.” Sergeant Nelson never returned, leaving Berkshire to lie in his own urine and feces for several hours. In Berkshire’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to all the defendants. Berkshire produced sufficient evidence to show violations of clearly established constitutional rights. View "Berkshire v. Dahl" on Justia Law

Officers, attempting to serve a civil levy on Watson, knocked on the door of Watson’s presumed residence until Watson came outside. Watson said that the house belonged to his girlfriend, who was inside, and that he did not live there. Watson actually rented the house with his girlfriend. Watson said that he did not have keys and could not get back inside. The officers asked Watson whether he had anything against which they could levy then told Watson that he was free to leave. After Watson left, the officers walked around the house's exterior to “look for items that could possibly be levied.” They smelled marijuana coming from the crawl-space vent; they claim that they saw partially smoked marijuana joints outside. The “joints” were never tested. The officers obtained a search warrant for the residence later that day based on that evidence, previous complaints about activity at the residence, Watson’s criminal record, and a confidential informant's tip. Inside, they located a large amount of marijuana and evidence indicative of its sale and use. Tennessee courts suppressed the evidence. In Watson's suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court agreed that Watson’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, but held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Under clearly established law, Watson did not disclaim his privacy interest in the residence, and the property was not abandoned; the officers exceeded the scope of their implied license to enter and remain on the curtilage. View "Watson v. Pearson" on Justia Law

Dennis committed several drug offenses, leading to a mandatory life sentence in 1997. In 2017, President Obama commuted his sentence to 30 years. Dennis filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition, arguing that he should have faced only a 20-year mandatory sentence because one of his Ohio convictions did not count as a felony under the recidivism enhancement. The district court held that it had no authority to question the commuted sentence and dismissed the petition as moot. The Sixth Circuit denied the petition on the merits, finding the Ohio conviction qualified for the enhancement; it was for a drug crime, and Ohio law allowed more than a year of punishment for that crime. Because the commutation did not alter the reality that Dennis continues to serve a sentence and could obtain a sentence of fewer than 30 years if he obtained the requested relief, the petition is not moot. Generally, a prisoner who receives a presidential commutation continues to be bound by a judicial sentence. The commutation changes only how the sentence is carried out by switching a greater punishment for a lesser one. The altered sentence does not become an executive sentence in full, free from judicial scrutiny with respect to mistakes the courts may have made. View "Dennis v. Terris" on Justia Law