Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In 2016, the out-of-state petition circulators challenged Section 2869 of the Pennsylvania Election Code, which requires that any circulator of nomination petitions be “a qualified elector of the Commonwealth, who is duly registered and enrolled as a member of the party designated in said petition.” The district court found that the ban was not facially unconstitutional, but was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs for the 2020 election only. The plaintiffs did not appeal the conclusion that the ban was not facially unconstitutional. The court declined to expand the injunctive relief to cover future elections for the plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals. The Third Circuit held that permanent injunctive relief for all future elections is appropriate for the plaintiff circulators only, not to all similarly situated individuals, and only if the plaintiffs continue to submit to Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction. The request for permanent relief for the plaintiffs and all similarly situated individuals goes beyond the specific plaintiffs and circumstances of this litigation and seeks facial relief. A factual record specific to each similarly situated individual circulator will be necessary to determine the appropriate relief in future elections. Each individual circulator will need to demonstrate their willingness to submit to Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction for the purpose of nomination circulation. View "Benezet Consulting LLC v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

Williams and Burton each filed civil rights complaints in the Western District of Pennsylvania against employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Burton alleged that the defendants retaliated against him after he filed a grievance, concerning his use of the law library. Williams alleged that prison staff refused to accommodate his special dietary needs. Both plaintiffs consented to have their cases heard by magistrate judges, who dismissed the cases before the defendants consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction.The Third Circuit vacated. A magistrate judge can acquire jurisdiction to decide a case only by the consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. 631(c)(1); “consent of the parties” does not mean consent just of the prisoner-plaintiff. The jurisdictional requirement cannot be waived by the parties. If the requirements of Section 636(c)(1) are not satisfied, the “magistrate judge [is deprived] of jurisdiction over the case” and the appellate court is statutorily deprived of appellate jurisdiction over the magistrate judge’s orders. Consent could not be implied in this case and retroactive, post-judgment consent cannot satisfy the statutory requirement. View "Burton v. Schamp" on Justia Law

June’s son, Brenden, suffers from severe bipolar disorder and is prone to violent outbursts. He has repeatedly been jailed and institutionalized. In 2017, he was involuntarily admitted to Greystone, a New Jersey state-run psychiatric hospital, where Brenden’s condition worsened. He stalked the halls, made an aggressive sexual comment to a staffer, and attacked other patients, sending one to the intensive care unit. Greystone staff encouraged June’s visits as part of Brenden’s treatment. Before one visit, June asked if it was safe to visit Brenden. Though Brenden had severely beaten another patient days earlier, his psychiatrist, Dr. Young, assured her that it was safe. Greystone employees were supposed to supervise all patient meetings but no one was assigned to monitor June’s visit. Initially, Brenden’s head nurse, Oglesby accompanied June, During June’s visit, Oglesby left the room. Brenden then attacked June, who suffered brain trauma, broken ribs, and PTSD.The district court dismissed June’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Sovereign immunity barred the claims against Greystone and state officials in their official capacity. The Third Circuit reversed as to Oglesby, who abandoned June mid-visit. June’s injury was fairly direct as well as foreseeable. Oglesby’s affirmative act endangered June; her departure deprived June of the freedom to avoid an unsupervised visit or to take other precautions. Dr. Young took no affirmative acts. View "Mears v. Connolly" on Justia Law

Martin’s state conviction became “final” in April 2002, triggering the one-year limitations period on state prisoners seeking federal habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The clock ran for 193 days, until October 21, 2002, when Martin filed a petition for state post-conviction relief (PCR). The clock was paused until June 14, 2004, the last day on which Martin could have appealed (but did not) the trial court’s denial of his petition—and expired 172 days later, on December 3, 2004. In June 2015, Martin filed a petition seeking federal habeas relief. The state appellate court had accepted Martin’s April 2012 motion for leave to appeal “as within time” the denial of his 2002 PCR petition; he argued that the ruling retroactively tolled the limitations period. Martin essentially argued that a “properly filed” PCR petition is “pending” under section 2244(d)(2) for the period between the expiration of time under state law in which a prisoner could have timely appealed the denial of a PCR petition, and the prisoner’s submission of a motion for leave to file a PCR appeal “as within time.”.The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his petition as untimely. Section 4 2244(d)(2)’s tolling mechanism looks forward, not backward, and a state court’s acceptance of an appeal “as within time” does not rewind the one-year clock. View "Martin v. Administrator New Jersey State Prison" on Justia Law

The Halls sued Millersville University under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681, after their daughter, Karlie, was murdered in her dorm room by her boyfriend, Orrostieta. Orrostieta had previously been removed from campus at Karlie’s request and, on the night of the murder, a resident assistant heard Karlie scream but did not follow up. Despite finding genuine issues of material fact, the district court granted Millersville summary judgment, holding that Millersville lacked notice it could face liability under Title IX for the actions of a non-student guest.The Third Circuit reversed. Millersville had adequate notice it could be liable under Title IX for its deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment perpetrated by a non-student guest. Title IX’s plain terms notify federal funding recipients that they may face monetary liability for intentional violations of the statute; it is an intentional violation of Title IX’s terms for a funding recipient to act with deliberate indifference to known sexual harassment where the recipient exercises substantial control over the context in which the harassment occurs and the harasser, even if they are a third party. Millersville’s own Title IX policy thus contemplated Title IX liability could result from the actions of third parties such as “visitors” like Orrostieta. The court agreed that factual disputes preclude summary judgment. View "Hall v. Millersville University" on Justia Law

Taylor, on probation, was found to be in possession of drugs, a firearm, and cash, and moved to suppress the evidence. Before the scheduled hearing, his court-appointed lawyer (Carey) moved to withdraw because Taylor would not permit him to withdraw pro se motions in which Taylor refused to “accept that the laws of the United States govern him.” Taylor contended that “the United States is not a country. It is a corporation.” The court denied Carey’s motion Taylor filed more documents. Carey again moved to withdraw, explaining that Taylor “desires to proceed pro se.” Carey acknowledged substantial concerns about Taylor’s legal competency.” Taylor acknowledged that he “d[id not] understand law” and requested that the court “deal with [him] commonly.” The court stated that his pro se filings were rambling and not founded on any legal principles. Taylor repeatedly attempted to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.The court denied his request to represent himself, denied his motion to suppress, and, later (twice) appointed new counsel. Taylor was convicted and sentenced to 264 months’ imprisonment. The Third Circuit vacated. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to self-representation if he “knowingly and intelligently” waives his right to counsel. When Taylor invoked that right, the district court bore “the weighty responsibility of conducting a sufficiently penetrating inquiry to satisfy itself that” Taylor could make such a waiver. The court did not complete the requisite inquiry. View "United States v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Officer Staffer saw Jefferson traveling at high speed with his car alarm blaring. Staffer, suspecting the vehicle was stolen, attempted a traffic stop. Jefferson was driving with an open container of alcohol. Fearing a probation violation, Jefferson did not stop. Officer Lias joined the pursuit after hearing radio dispatches, only aware that Jefferson was driving a possibly stolen vehicle. Although other officers observed Jefferson traveling at high speeds, running red lights, ignoring police signals to pull over, and driving close to other vehicles, Lias did not personally witness Jefferson doing so. Jefferson hit a fire hydrant. Officers surrounded Jefferson’s vehicle. Jefferson reversed, striking a police vehicle before backing into an intersection. Lias arrived as Jefferson was driving away. Lias claims that he discharged his firearm because he feared for his own safety and others around him. Jefferson was struck in his forearm, fracturing his bones, but drove away. Jefferson later pled guilty to second-degree eluding.The district court rejected Jefferson’s 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, finding Lias entitled to qualified immunity. The Third Circuit reversed. A jury should make factual determinations regarding Lias’s decision to employ deadly force against Jefferson. Video footage makes clear that neither Lias nor anyone else was in danger of being struck by Jefferson. It is clearly established that an otherwise non-threatening individual engaged in vehicular flight is entitled to be free from being subjected to deadly force if it is unreasonable for an officer to believe his or others’ lives are in immediate jeopardy. Jefferson’s second-degree eluding conviction does not preclude his excessive force claim. View "Jefferson v. Lias" on Justia Law

Maple’s girlfriend, Vinsek, told him that Teck had tried to rape her. Later, they found her apartment ransacked and blamed Teck and his friend, Altman. Maple tracked them down at a bar, where he brawled with them. Vinsek called the police to report the burglary. Maple stated, “maybe I’ll just handle it my way.” Hours later, Maple found Teck and Altman and shot at them, killing Teck. Detectives went to talk to Maple and Vinsek, identified themselves as police, and stated that Maple was not under arrest but asked to talk with him about the murder. Maple agreed. Officers failed to read his Miranda rights. After about an hour, Maple confessed. He was then arrested and read Miranda warnings. He waived those rights and confessed again, on tape. At trial, Maple confessed again, claiming he was drunk at the time. The prosecution produced a “mountain of evidence” that proved his intent. Altman and three witnesses testified to the shooting. Maple was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder.The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief. E Even if the trial court should have suppressed his confession before Miranda warnings, any error was harmless; other evidence overwhelmingly incriminated him. Maple doubtless would have been convicted of first-degree murder of Teck and trying to murder Altman. View "Maple v. Superintendent Albion SCI" on Justia Law

Dennis was convicted of a 1991 robbery and first-degree murder and was sentenced to death. In 2013, the district court granted Dennis’s habeas petition, vacated his conviction, and ordered a new trial on all charges, finding that Dennis’s prosecutors withheld material impeachment evidence. The Third Circuit, en banc, affirmed. On remand, Dennis accepted a deal. In exchange for a time-served sentence, he pleaded nolo contendere to reduced charges. Dennis then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging fabrication of evidence and deliberate deception, civil rights conspiracy, failure to intervene, supervisory liability, and municipal liability.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. Dennis has alleged the violation of his due process rights clearly established at the time of the detective’s conduct on which the claims are based. Dennis’s deliberate deception claim not only alleges that the detectives withheld exculpatory and impeachment evidence that would have supported his alibi and defense, but that they also failed to correct testimony they knew was false and concealed from the defense the evidence that revealed that trial testimony as false. The court dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal, consideration of a ruling that the Heck bar does not apply. View "Dennis v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Garrett, a New Jersey prisoner, has commenced at least 10 civil actions against prison officials, state officials, and the United States, avoiding paying filing fees for these lawsuits by proceeding in forma pauperis. All his lawsuits have been unsuccessful. Garrett appealed the dismissal of his latest lawsuit, which concerns his risk of contracting COVID-19 and speedy trial issues.The Third Circuit affirmed, citing the three-strikes rule, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Noting the division among circuit courts, the court stated that a suit dismissed under “Heck” is dismissed for failure to state a claim and counts as a strike. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner lacks a “cause of action” under section 1983 if the prisoner is challenging an “allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment” before having the conviction or sentence overturned (the favorable-termination requirement). Garrett has three prior suits dismissed for failure to meet Heck’s “favorable-termination” requirement. Garrett has not shown that he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). View "Garrett v. Murphy" on Justia Law