Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Harvard gave Mazzetti (a stranger) a ride home because Mazzetti was afraid of her boyfriend (Sutton). Upon their arrival, Sutton made threats, tried to get Mazzetti out of the vehicle, and used racial slurs against Harvard, a Black male. Harvard called 911 and proceeded to leave with Mazzetti. Sutton jumped onto the hood of Harvard’s moving vehicle, making death threats. Harvard believed Sutton had a firearm and a knife. Harvard informed the 911 operator of the situation and drove onto the highway. The operator instructed Harvard to take a specific exit.At the police roadblock, Trooper Cesnalis did not respond to Harvard’s explanation, made no effort to locate the knife or the firearm, and asked Harvard to take a Breathalyzer test. Harvard agreed. After six tries, Harvard completed the test, which indicated that his blood alcohol content was below the legal limit. Cesnalis nonetheless inferred that Harvard was under the influence because he was sweaty, speaking rapidly, and not directly answering questions. Harvard was handcuffed and taken to the police station. Cesnalis was aware that Sutton had a criminal record but accepted Sutton’s explanation that Harvard had hit him with his vehicle. Sutton was not charged. Mazzetti corroborated Harvard’s statements. Despite negative results from additional testing, Cesnalis charged Harvard with DUI, recklessly endangering another person, reckless driving, simple assault, aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct, referring to Sutton as “the victim.” He omitted several exculpatory facts from the affidavit and referred to Harvard’s criminal history, although there was no evidence that Harvard had a criminal history.Harvard, exonerated, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment for Cesnalis as to false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and Equal Protection but affirmed as to the remaining claims and as to another officer. View "Harvard v. Cesnalis" on Justia Law

In February 2019, Harris filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, which was recharacterized as a motion for compassionate release. The district court concluded that Harris had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. A prisoner may file a motion for compassionate release with the sentencing court “after [he or she] has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier,” 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). The court concluded that because the Warden denied Harris’s request within 30 days, he was required to completely exhaust the administrative remedy process.The Third Circuit vacated, noting that the government concedes that its argument regarding exhaustion was in error. The statute states that the defendant may file the motion 30 days after the warden receives his request. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

In reliance on a Pennsylvania statute and the Supreme Court’s 1977 “Abood” decision, the unions collected “fair-share fees” from the plaintiffs over the plaintiffs’ objections. The plaintiffs did not join the unions but were represented by the unions, which served as the exclusive bargaining agents for their bargaining units. In 2018, the Supreme Court overruled Abood in Janus v. AFSCME, holding that state legislation condoning public-sector fair-share fees was unconstitutional.The plaintiffs filed 42 U.S.C. 1983 lawsuits seeking reimbursement of the sums they were required to pay. The district courts, joining a consensus of federal courts across the country, dismissed the claims for monetary relief, ruling that because the unions collected the fair-share fees in good faith reliance on a governing state statute and Supreme Court precedent, they are entitled to, and have successfully made out, a good faith defense to monetary liability under section 1983. The Third Circuit affirmed. The good faith defense to section 1983 liability is “narrow” and “only rarely will a party successfully claim to have relied substantially and in good faith on both a state statute and unambiguous Supreme Court precedent validating that statute.” View "Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association" on Justia Law

PSBA is a non-profit association created by Pennsylvania’s school districts. Campbell energetically used Pennsylvania's Right to Know Law (RTKL) to obtain records from PSBA’s constituent school districts. In 2017, Campell sent RTKL requests to public school agencies, seeking contact information for district employees and union representatives. PSBA’s attorney advised member districts that they were required to release publicly-available information, but they did not have to provide private data and that they could simply make the results “available for pickup.” When Campbell received copies of PSBA’s legal guidance, he established a web page entitled “PSBA Horror,” mocking PSBA's Executive Director. PSBA’s counsel threatened to sue Campbell for defamation. Campbell submitted another, 17-page, RTKL request, seeking 27 types of documentation regarding the districts' relationship with PSBA.PSBA sued Campbell, alleging defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and abuse of process. Campbell then filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, alleging that PSBA’s state suit was motivated by an improper desire to retaliate against him for proper RTKL requests, violating his First Amendment rights. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Campell’s suit. Campbell’s RTKL requests and PSBA’s state tort claims were both protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which shields constitutionally-protected conduct from civil liability, absent certain exceptions. The district court erred in requiring a heightened burden of proof on PSBA’s motives in bringing its state court tort claims but Campbell’s civil rights claim would fail under any standard of proof. View "Campbell v. Pennsylvania School Boards Association" on Justia Law

In 2001, Rosen stabbed his wife to death in their home, then called the police and claimed that home invaders had stabbed his wife. Within hours, he confessed to the stabbing but claimed it was an unintentional response to his wife swinging a knife at him. The prosecution requested a psychiatric exam of Rosen in preparation for his first murder trial, where he raised a diminished capacity defense. After his first conviction was overturned, he abandoned his diminished capacity defense. In his federal habeas corpus petition, Rosen argued that the second trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when it ruled that his statements from the court-ordered psychiatric exam were admissible to impeach Rosen if he chose to testify at his second trial. Electing not to testify, Rosen was again convicted of murder.The Third Circuit affirmed the district court in denying relief. Rosen cannot demonstrate that using his statements to the psychiatric expert at the second trial for the limited purpose of impeachment would violate clearly established Fifth Amendment law. Rosen both initiated an evaluation and introduced psychiatric evidence at his first criminal trial. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court could reasonably find that the Fifth Amendment waiver triggered by Rosen’s mental health defense at his first trial extended to his second trial, at least with respect to the issues raised by his own expert. View "Rosen v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI" on Justia Law

In 2001, Connellsville police found Haith, lying dead on the sidewalk. District Attorney Vernon helped direct the investigation. Officers interviewed Weimer, who had what looked like blood on her clothes. Weimer told officers that she had given Haith a ride to a party. Others confirmed her story. None of the crime scene DNA matched Weimer. Months later, Beal, whom Weimer had previously dated, told police that Weimer and Gibson killed Haith. Reviewing autopsy photos, an investigator saw an apparent bite mark on Haith’s hand. A bite-mark expert reviewed Beal’s statement, photos of Haith’s hand, and teeth impressions from Gibson and Weimer. He concluded the bite mark matched Weimer and had occurred minutes before Haith’s death. Beal then changed his story. Months later, Blair contacted police, stating that a fellow inmate, Stenger, was involved. Despite three conflicting statements, officers charged Weimer with murder; Vernon approved. Beal recanted his previous statements, testifying that an officer “coaxed me.” The judge dismissed the charges. Investigators continued to investigate Weimer. Stenger told police he would implicate Weimer in exchange for a lighter sentence for unrelated convictions. Officers again charged Weimer. In 2006, a jury convicted her. In 2015, a judge vacated Weimer’s convictions. Significant exculpatory evidence was uncovered. Stenger conceded he knew nothing about Haith’s murder and that police had walked him through his testimony. The bite-mark expert disavowed his testimony. The charges against Weimer were “dropped with prejudice.”Weimer filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Third Circuit, on interlocutory appeal, held that former D.A. Vernon is not protected by absolute immunity. Aside from Vernon’s approval of the criminal complaint, Weimer alleges Vernon engaged in investigatory conduct. Vernon is entitled to qualified immunity as to Weimer’s failure to intervene claim and as to Vernon’s alleged conduct in directing officers to investigate bite-mark evidence. View "Weimer v. County of Fayette" on Justia Law

In 2014, a sniper attacked Pennsylvania State Troopers at the Barracks, killing one and severely injuring the other. The next day, Troopers received a report that a man (DeLade) with a rifle was walking down a highway 15 miles from the Barracks. Trooper Cargan ran DeLade’s name through a criminal-history database and learned that the Escambia County, Florida sheriff’s department had issued a warrant for DeLade’s arrest, with a “no extradition” status. Cargan called and requested that the department change the status of the warrant to “full extradition.” The department complied. Troopers arrested DeLade, alleging that he had been charged with a crime in Florida. DeLade remained in pretrial detention for five days awaiting his extradition hearing—his first court appearance. Escambia County indicated that it would not extradite DeLade, so the Commonwealth dropped the arrest-prior-to-requisition charge. Another complaint was filed, charging him with being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; the court released him on bail. DeLade later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. A court sentenced him to 12 months’ probation.DeLade filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, asserting that Cargan violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Due Process Clause by fabricating evidence to support the arrest-prior-to-requisition charge. The district court granted Cargan summary judgment on DeLade’s Fourth Amendment claims, finding that probable cause existed to justify charging DeLade as a prohibited person in possession of a firearm but declined to grant summary judgment or qualified immunity to Cargan on DeLade’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. The Third Circuit reversed in part. A claim alleging unlawful arrest and pretrial detention before a detainee’s first court appearance sounds in the Fourth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause. View "Delade v. Cargan" on Justia Law

In April 2020, a Pennsylvania district court ordered the release of 22 immigration detainees because of the COVID-192 pandemic, by granting a temporary restraining order without affording the government an opportunity to be heard. The Petitioners had filed a joint petition, alleging they were at risk of serious harm from COVID-19, although they vary in age from 28-69, have divergent health conditions, have unique criminal histories, and have diverse home and family situations.The Third Circuit vacated those orders, stating that exigent circumstances do not empower a court to jettison fundamental principles of due process or the rules of procedure. Considering all the responsive measures implemented to detect and to prevent the spread of the virus, the challenges of facility administration during an unprecedented situation, and the purposes served by detention, the petitioners did not show a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the conditions of their confinement constitute unconstitutional punishment and did not establish that the government was deliberately indifferent toward their medical needs. The court too readily accepted the all-or-nothing request for immediate release and erred in not considering as part of the balancing of harm practical difficulties involved in locating and re-detaining the petitioners should the government ultimately prevail or should a petitioner abscond, commit a crime, or violate another term of release. View "Hope v. Warden Pike County Correctional Facility" on Justia Law

In 2004, Starnes, an Allegheny County Probation Officer, met Doerr, the President Judge of the Butler County Court. Doerr repeatedly called Starnes to ask her to meet him at his chambers. Starnes eventually visited his chambers after hours. Doerr insisted on having sex, telling Starnes that it would be a ‘business relationship.’” Doerr exercised authority over hiring probation officers. Starnes wished to return to Butler, her hometown; Doerr made sure she was hired. After Starnes started working in Butler County, Doerr began summoning her to his chambers for sexual relations. After their sexual relationship ended in 2009, Doerr continued asking her to film herself performing sexual acts, flirting with her from the bench, and threatening to "help her return to her previous job.” In 2010, Starnes began dating the man she later married, another Probation Officer. He was harassed and pushed into retirement. Starnes was denied her own office, overtime, training, and other opportunities she alleges her male counterparts had. Within days of telling her supervisors of her intention to file EEOC charges, Starnes was placed on a “performance improvement plan.” Weeks earlier, Starnes had received a positive evaluation with no noted performance issues.The Third Circuit held that accepting her allegations as true, Starnes stated plausible claims for sex discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and that Doerr violated her First Amendment freedom of expression and right to petition the government. Because the law is clearly established that this conduct is actionable discrimination, the district court did not err in denying Doerr qualified immunity. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity on Starnes’s intimate association claim. View "Starnes v. Butler County Court of Common Pleas" on Justia Law

In 2004, Abreu was convicted in Pennsylvania of 22 drug-related counts and was sentenced to 27-54 years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to a federal sentence Abreu was already serving. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed. Abreu later unsuccessfully sought relief under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). In 2015, Abreu filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, claiming that his PCRA counsel’s assistance was ineffective in failing to assert that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The district court rejected his claims.The Third Circuit granted a certificate of appealability as to claims that trial counsel performed ineffectively by failing to challenge the admission of grand jury testimony and by failing to seek to strike a police officer’s testimony recounting statements made by others. While Abreu’s appeal was pending, he was released on early parole, subject to a federal removal order, and then removed to the Dominican Republic. His federal conviction (not at issue) permanently bars his reentry. The Third Circuit directed the district court to dismiss Abreu’s petition as moot. Without a collateral consequence of Abreu’s state conviction that can be redressed by a favorable decision on his petition, there is no case or controversy under Article III. View "Abreu v. Superintendent Smithfield SCI" on Justia Law