Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

San Benito police officer Hector Lopez approached Plaintiff while Plaintiff was standing in the front yard of his property. Lopez pushed open the gate into Plaintiff’s yard. Plaintiff told Lopez he needed a warrant and pushed back. Within seconds, the parties physically struggled, with the fifty-year-old, disabled Plaintiff brought to the ground. Plaintiff was taken into custody and, after receiving medical attention for his injuries, was charged with several offenses. All were dismissed. He now seeks recompense from Defendants Lopez and the City of San Benito for false arrest and excessive force. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.   The Fifth Circuit concluded that Plaintiff had raised genuine issues of material fact as to his claim for false arrest against Lopez. The court reversed and remanded concerning the false arrest claim. The court otherwise affirmed. The court explained that because the hot pursuit exception does not apply (and because Lopez has not identified any other applicable exception to the warrant requirement), Plaintiff has raised genuine issues of fact as to whether Lopez had the authority to enter his property to arrest him for disorderly conduct. Further, the court wrote that its conclusion that Lopez lacked authority to make a warrantless entry onto Plaintiff’s property applies equal force to Lopez’s argument that he could have entered the property to arrest Plaintiff or failed to identify. Moreover, a rational factfinder could determine that Lopez arrested Plaintiff before Plaintiff applied any resistance. View "Sauceda v. City of San Benito, et al" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of various firearm and controlled substance offenses, holding that none of Defendant's challenges on appeal had merit.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the district court correctly concluded that the search warrant leading to Defendant's arrest was clearly supported by probable cause, and therefore, there was no error in the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions on the firearm charges; and (3) the district court's seventy-two-month sentence on count one was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Sylvestre" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was arrested for murder and held for almost four years before the charges against him were dismissed, months after another person confessed to the crime. Years later, Plaintiff then sued the County of Riverside and various County officials under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming that they had violated his due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by suppressing the separate confession. The district court denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the Brady claim.   The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, without prejudice to Parker, asserting a different due process claim. A Brady violation requires that the withheld evidence have a reasonable probability of affecting a judicial proceeding, and no such proceeding was affected here. The panel held that Plaintiff could not show prejudice from the nondisclosure of the confession. A Brady violation requires that the withheld evidence have a reasonable probability of affecting a judicial proceeding. Plaintiff did not state a Brady claim because he did not assert the nondisclosure would have changed the result of any proceeding in his criminal case. The panel rejected Plaintiff’s contention that the prejudice inquiry should be whether the withheld evidence had a reasonable probability of affecting counsel’s strategy. The panel noted that no court has adopted Plaintiff’s proposed rule, and most other courts require a conviction to establish prejudice. Moreover, here, the cause of Plaintiff’s continued detention was not the suppression of the confession, but the District Attorney’s continued prosecution even after receiving the confession. View "ROGER PARKER V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order dismissing his First and Eighth Amendment claims brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff alleged that he faced harassment, retaliation, and physical harm. Relevant here, he alleged that prison officer Lieutenant Carmen Herrera repeatedly threatened him, denied him law library access, and assaulted him several times, causing a broken arm and wrist. Plaintiff also alleged that physician’s assistant Jose Esquetini refused to treat his broken bones or take x-rays for six weeks to cover up Herrera’s assaults. Chambers asserts that he was then assaulted by Officer Enrique Velez, who allegedly sprayed him in the mouth and face with mace.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s order. Affirming the dismissal of the First Amendment retaliation claim, the panel agreed with Plaintiff that the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule explicitly disavowed any Bivens claims based on First Amendment retaliation. The panel held that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim failed to state a claim under Egbert. The panel held that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim similarly failed under Bivens, but dismissal of that claim should be with prejudice because even plausible allegations could not constitute a Bivens claim for excessive force under Egbert, and amendment would be futile. The panel determined that it was unclear whether the Bivens claim was viable because the plaintiff failed to allege any facts about his injuries, examination, or treatment. View "ROSCOE CHAMBERS V. C. HERRERA, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff acting on behalf of her son, a student who qualifies for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), appealed an order of the district court denying her motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction pursuant to the IDEA’s “stay-put” provision. The stay-put provision provides that “during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree,” a student “shall remain” in the student’s “then-current educational placement.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Community Services for Autistic Adults and Children, a private residential treatment center in Maryland, and its affiliated school, the Community School of Maryland’s (together, CSAAC) unilateral decision to discharge Plaintiff’s son did not trigger the IDEA’s stay-put mandate because the District did not refuse to provide a similar available placement. Neither the text of Section 1415(j) nor the court’s previous decisions applying the provision impose an affirmative duty on the District to provide an alternative residential environment when a student’s then-current placement becomes unavailable for reasons outside the District’s control. The court explained that Plaintiff’s attempt to bring a substantive challenge on behalf of her son by invoking the stay-put mandate is procedurally improper because Section 1415(j) is not intended to afford parties affirmative relief, on the merits, in the form of an automatic injunction. View "Anne Davis v. DC" on Justia Law

Thousands of protesters flooded the streets of the District to proclaim “Black Lives Matter.” Over several weeks, the protesters covered streets, sidewalks, and storefronts with paint and chalk. The markings were ubiquitous and in open violation of the District’s defacement ordinance, yet none of the protesters were arrested. During the same summer, District police officers arrested two pro-life advocates in a smaller protest for chalking “Black Pre-Born Lives Matter” on a public sidewalk. The organizers of the smaller protest, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America (collectively “the Foundation”), sued. The Foundation alleged violations of the First and Fifth Amendments, conceding the defacement ordinance was facially constitutional but arguing the District’s one-sided enforcement of the ordinance was not. The district court dismissed the complaint. Concluding the First Amendment and equal protection claims were essentially the same, the district court held the Foundation had failed to adequately allege discriminatory intent, which the court considered a necessary element of both claims.   The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Foundation’s equal protection claim because the Foundation has not plausibly alleged invidious discrimination by District officials. Discriminatory motive, however, is not an element of a First Amendment free speech selective enforcement claim. The First Amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of viewpoint irrespective of the government’s motive. The court held the Foundation has plausibly alleged the District discriminated on the basis of viewpoint in the selective enforcement of its defacement ordinance. Therefore, the court reversed the dismissal of the Foundation’s First Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs placed their child AMS at a private academy after the Chamberlain School District did not meet AMS’s needs. A state hearing examiner decided that Chamberlain violated federal law and awarded Plaintiffs costs associated with AMS’s placement at the academy. The district court affirmed.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Chamberlain argued that Plaintiffs weren’t eligible to remove the case from state court to federal court because they weren’t “defendants” under 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). The court explained that while Plaintiffs initially sought to recover from Chamberlain, their status changed when Chamberlain sought the state court’s review of the hearing examiner’s decision. At that point, Chamberlain became the plaintiff for removal purposes. Thus, because Plaintiffs were defendants, they were allowed to remove, so the district court didn’t err in denying remand. Further, the court explained that giving due weight to the outcome of the administrative proceedings, it concludes that Chamberlain denied AMS a FAPE. View "Judith Steckelberg v. Chamberlain School District" on Justia Law

In 2008, Taney County, through its Planning Commission, issued Emerald Pointe a permit to develop a gated community with private roads. Emerald Pointe subsequently began construction of the project. In 2016, the Planning Commission issued a stop-work order, demanding Emerald Pointe comply with requirements for certain public improvements. Emerald Pointe appealed to the Taney County Board of Adjustment (“BOA”), arguing the requirements did not apply to the permit. The BOA denied the appeal, and Emerald Pointe filed suit against the Planning Commission and BOA in the Circuit Court of Taney County, seeking judicial review of the stop-work order pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute Section 64.870. Emerald Pointe filed a lawsuit under Section 1983 for damages incurred while a stop-work order was in place. The district court dismissed the case after finding the suit barred by res judicata. Emerald Pointe appealed.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that it applies Missouri res judicata law because the final judgment was issued by a Missouri court. Emerald Pointe could have brought the Section 1983 claim in the state court case. Emerald Pointe argues a Section 1983 claim could not have been added to the request for judicial review of the stop-work order under Missouri Revised Statute Section 64.870. Section 64.870 is the exclusive remedy for challenging the issuance of a stop-work order. However, nothing precludes a plaintiff from adding an additional claim to the state court case for judicial review. View "Emerald Pointe, LLC v. Taney County Missouri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was held in pretrial custody at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (the Jail) in Little Rock, Arkansas, for five weeks. After he was released, Plaintiff filed a suit for damages against a Pulaski County official, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and disability discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all of Plaintiff’s claims.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Section 1983 deliberate indifference and conditions-of-confinement claims. But because triable issues remain on Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim under the ADA and ACRA, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the record shows that Plaintiff indeed submitted “grievances” to the Jail complaining, for example, that he could not “stand up,” that he lacked help “changing or cleaning” himself, and that he could not “transfer to a toilet [and] back to the chair.” Moreover, at least one of Plaintiff’s disabilities—his paraplegia and the concomitant need for accommodations—was “obvious.” Thus, a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the Jail was on notice that Hall needed accommodations. Further, the court wrote that A viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Jail failed to provide him with meaningful access to beds, toilets, and the identified medical care services. View "Carlos Hall, Sr. v. Eric Higgins" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges (“NSCS”) appealed from a jury verdict finding it acted with deliberate indifference after Jane Doe (“Doe”) was sexually assaulted while attending Chadron State College (“Chadron”). On appeal, NSCS raised three claims: (1) the Title IX claim fails as a matter of law; (2) the district court erred when it admitted the expert testimony of Dr. Charol Shakeshaft; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorney’s fees. We begin with NSCS’s paramount claim that, as a matter of law, it was not deliberately indifferent after Doe reported being sexually assaulted.   The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded with directions that the district court enter judgment in favor of NSCS and vacated the award of Doe’s attorney fees. The court explained that viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that Chadron acted promptly—nearly immediately—upon learning of the assault. Chadron issued a mutually binding no-contact order between Doe and the accused, which was served on the accused at the end of his police interview. Chadron verified that the two students did not share the same classes and promptly initiated an investigation to determine what happened. Chadron interviewed Doe, explained the investigatory process to her, banned the accused from Andrews Hall, and accommodated Doe academically. Further, the court held that Doe cannot show a causal nexus between Chadron’s actions and the sexual assaults or harassment. View "Jane Doe v. Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges" on Justia Law