Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Perreault was alone with his four-month-old daughter when he called 911 to report that Jenna had been injured. Police and paramedics arrived and found that Jenna had suffered a blunt-force trauma to the head. She died from her injuries. Perreault was indicted for first-degree felony murder and felony child abuse. He claimed that he had dropped Jenna, had fallen on top of her, and that she may have hit her head on an object as they fell. The state produced the testimony of the emergency room doctor that Jenna’s injuries could have been caused only by a narrow range of high-impact events, such as a high-speed car accident, a fall from several stories, or “a baseball bat to the head.” Convicted, Perreault was sentenced to life in prison. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. He filed an unsuccessful state post-conviction petition, arguing ineffective assistance. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a denial of federal habeas relief. The state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent in rejecting claims that Perreault’s statement during his interrogation, “let’s call the lawyer then ‘cause I gave what I could,” constituted an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel that required the police to stop questioning him and that Perreault’s trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the state expert’s testimony about the cause of Jenna’s injuries. View "Perreault v. Smith" on Justia Law

Navarre, a confidential informant for the Toledo Vice Narcotics Unit (TPD), was found unresponsive and bleeding from the head on December 1, 1993. A bloody, 110-pound boulder was found near her body. Navarre died days later. TPD misclassified the offense as a felonious assault and destroyed the relevant evidence once the statute of limitation for felonious assault expired. The case remained unsolved until 2005, when Wilson’s wife, told TPD of Wilson’s possible involvement in Navarre’s murder. Mrs. Wilson testified against Wilson, but owing to Wilson’s assertion of spousal privilege, her testimony was limited to acts and communications by Wilson in the presence of a third party. Mrs. Wilson’s son also testified that on the night of the murder, Wilson made comments that “snitch bitches die,” and “he had to kill the snitch bitch,” and finally, that he“dropped a brick on her head.” Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years to life. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the physical evidence, including the bloody boulder, was not “materially exculpatory.” The trial court rejected, as untimely, Wilson’s “motion to vacate” in which he argued that the state failed to adhere to discovery obligations, depriving him of a fair trial. The Ohio Court of Appeals denied his application to reopen his appeal, in which he claimed ineffective assistance. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. View "Wilson v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Campbell of four counts of aggravated murder, four counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted kidnapping, and one count each of kidnapping, felonious assault, escape, and having a weapon under a disability. The court adopted the jury's recommendation and sentenced him to death. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed Campbell’s convictions but remanded for resentencing due to a procedural error. On remand, the court resentenced Campbell to death. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. In 2005, Campbell filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition, alleging 12 grounds for relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition. In 2015, Campbell filed a second section 2254 petition, challenging Ohio’s lethal injection protocol. The magistrate ordered and the district court affirmed its transfer to the Sixth Circuit for initial review as a “successive” habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit denied the motion. Under Supreme Court precedent, an Eighth Amendment habeas corpus challenge to the death penalty cannot succeed unless it can identify a constitutional means of execution. The court rejected arguments based on Ohio’s changed execution protocol and on Campbell’s physical and mental health. The court noted that Campbell’s alternative, 42 U.S.C. 1983, empowers a court to enjoin the"deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution." A hearing on Campbell’s section 1983 motion is scheduled. View "In re: Campbell" on Justia Law

On April 9, Montmorency County jail nurse Sigler interviewed Shane, arrested for driving on a suspended license. Shane complained that he was “bipolar,” “paranoid,” had “panic attack[s]” and had a history of substance abuse. Sigler noted the need for a mental health evaluation and for a referral for “emergency treatment” “on discharge.” She returned Shane to the general population. Shane requested another meeting and described himself as anxious, paranoid, tense, unable to sleep, and experiencing “severe rage.” Sigler telephoned Pilarski, a nurse specializing in mental health. Pilarski recommended Benadryl and a follow-up appointment. Sigler scheduled Shane for a May 2 appointment. The center offered an earlier appointment, but a deputy would be on vacation at that time and transportation would be difficult. She recorded that Shane “denies suicide.” At an April 17 meeting, Sigler noted that he was less anxious. On April 19, he reported that he was afraid he would hurt others and that he had scraped his hands punching the wall. Hoping to schedule an earlier appointment, Sigler called Pilarski but could not reach her. Shane hanged himself in the shower on the night of April 22-23. In his parents’ action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the court granted the county summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of Sigler's claim of qualified immunity. A triable issue of fact remains over whether Sigler violated Shane’s clearly established Fourteenth Amendment right to sufficient treatment for a serious medical problem. View "Bays v. Montmorency County" on Justia Law

Doe met Roe on Tinder. They eventually met in person. Doe invited Roe to his apartment, where the two engaged in sex. Three weeks later, Roe reported to the University of Cincinnati’s Title IX Office that Doe had sexually assaulted her that evening. No physical evidence supports either student’s version. Five months later, UC cited Doe for violating the Student Code of Conduct. UC resolves charges of non-academic misconduct through an Administrative Review Committee hearing process. UC’s Code of Conduct does not require witnesses to be present. If a witness is “unable to attend,” the Code permits him to submit a “notarized statement” to the Committee. After considerable delay, UC held Doe's hearing. Despite Roe’s failure to appear, UC found Doe “responsible” for sexual assault, based upon Roe's previous hearsay statements to investigators. UC suspended Doe for a year after an administrative appeal. Doe argued that the denial of his right to confront his accuser violated his due process rights. In granting a preliminary injunction against Doe’s suspension, the district court found a strong likelihood that Doe would prevail on his constitutional claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Due Process Clause guarantees fundamental fairness to state university students facing long-term exclusion from the educational process. The Committee necessarily made a credibility determination and its failure to provide any form of confrontation of the accuser made the proceeding fundamentally unfair. View "Doe v. University of Cincinnati" on Justia Law

While Richmond was incarcerated in the Wayne County Jail for about six weeks, she received treatment for a burn, resulting from Richmond setting her seatbelt on fire while trying to escape the police cruiser following her arrest. Richmond contends that she received constitutionally inadequate treatment for her burn wound, which necessitated skin grafting surgery shortly after her release, and that she was unconstitutionally deprived of her psychiatric medication for over two weeks while in custody. The district court below granted the defendants summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part. A reasonable jury could find that one doctor was or should have been aware of Richmond’s serious need for psychiatric medication, as evidenced by a nurse’s notation, and that she failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that Richmond received her medication. There is evidence that psychiatric social workers knew or had reason to know that Richmond had serious psychiatric needs that required treatment; that there was a risk that she would begin experiencing symptoms of depression and bipolar disorder days before she could expect to receive any medication to treat those ailments; and that they disregarded that risk. There was also evidence that certain nurses and medical assistants disregarded Richmond’s medical needs. View "Richmond v. Huq" on Justia Law

In 2011, Conzelmann pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); (b)(1)(C). The Sixth Circuit affirmed his sentence, as a career offender, to 188 months in prison. The Supreme Court denied his certiorari petition. Conzelmann filed his first 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge the career offender enhancement, and that government agents “compelled” him to sell drugs. The district court denied the motion. The Sixth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Conzelmann moved (FRCP 60(b)) for relief from judgment, arguing that his presentence report contained a factual error. The Sixth Circuit denied permission to file a second or successive 2255 motion. Conzelmann then moved for consideration under the Supreme Court’s 2016 “Mathis” decision, arguing that he should not have been classified as a career offender because his prior conviction for possessing chemicals to manufacture drugs no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction. The Sixth Circuit denied relief. A second or successive collateral attack is permissible only if it rests on newly discovered evidence or “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” 28 U.S.C. 2255(h). Mathis did not announce a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive; the holding was dictated by precedent and merely interpreted the statutory word “burglary” in the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "In re: Conzelmann" on Justia Law

Beydoun and Bazzi, both U.S. citizens, alleged that as a result of being placed on the federal government’s “Selectee List,” which designates them for enhanced screening at the airport, they have missed flights and been humiliated. The Selectee List is a subset of the government’s Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) decides whether to accept the “nomination” of a person by the FBI or the National Counterterrorism Center to the TSDB or the Selectee List and decides whether to remove a name after it receives a redress request. Beydoun and Bazzi both claim to have attempted to use the procedure to challenge their inclusion on the List and to have received only generalized responses that neither confirmed nor denied their inclusion on the List. The district court dismissed their suits, which alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment and unlawful agency action. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Plaintiffs did not allege that any protected interest was violated; they may have been inconvenienced by the extra security hurdles they endured in order to board an airplane but those burdens do not amount to a constitutional violation. Plaintiffs have not been prevented from flying altogether or from traveling by other means. View "Bazzi v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In 1998, a jury convicted Coley of attempted murder, two counts each of kidnapping and aggravated robbery, and three counts of aggravated murder (with the felony-murder aggravating circumstance attached to each count). He was sentenced to death. After unsuccessfully pursuing state-court relief, he unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief in 2003. In 2017, Coley filed a new federal habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit denied Coley permission to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, based on his argument that the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision, Hurst v. Florida, rendered Ohio’s death-penalty scheme unconstitutional. Even if Hurst announced “a new rule of constitutional law,” the Supreme Court has not “made [Hurst] retroactive to cases on collateral review.” While not all second-in-time petitions are “second or successive,” it “cannot be that every new legal rule, including those not made retroactive on collateral review, also constitutes a new factual predicate,” and Coley has not shown that the facts underlying his claim “would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence” that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty. View "In re: Coley" on Justia Law

Upon receiving an anonymous tip, the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) investigated allegations of race-fixing, involving gamblers and harness-racing drivers. Plaintiffs, MGCB-licensed harness drivers, attended an administrative hearing but declined to answer questions, invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The MGCB immediately suspended their licenses, based on a requirement that license applicants “cooperate in every way . . . during the conduct of an investigation, including responding correctly, to the best of his or her knowledge, to all questions pertaining to racing.” MGCB later issued exclusion orders banning the drivers from all state race tracks and denied Plaintiffs’ applications for 2011, 2012, and 2013 licenses. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violations of their procedural due process and Fifth Amendment rights. The Sixth Circuit held that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The exclusion orders were issued about 30 months before a post-exclusion hearing; Plaintiffs identified a violation of a clearly established right. Under specific conditions, a public employee “may rightfully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers.” The Supreme Court has held that if a state wishes to punish an employee for invoking that right, “States must offer to the witness whatever immunity is required to supplant the privilege and may not insist that the employee ... waive such immunity.” Both rights were clearly established at the time of the violation. View "Moody v. Michigan Gaming Control Board" on Justia Law