Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

An inmate at the Jefferson County Jail, who was on suicide watch and housed on the bottom floor of a two-story cell block, suffered a head injury and requested medical attention. A deputy, who was not previously familiar with the inmate, observed her distress and the visible injury. After consulting with a nurse, the deputy prepared to transport the inmate to the medical clinic and remotely unlocked her cell door from the control room. Upon release, the inmate ran upstairs and jumped from the second-story landing, sustaining additional injuries.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama considered the inmate’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the deputy was deliberately indifferent to a strong likelihood of self-harm. The district court denied the deputy’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. It found that a reasonable juror could conclude the deputy violated the inmate's constitutional rights by disregarding the risk of harm in releasing her unsupervised and that the law regarding deliberate indifference to detainee safety was clearly established.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo. The appellate court determined that, although the inmate suffered a serious deprivation, there was insufficient evidence that the deputy was subjectively aware that unlocking the cell presented a substantial suicide risk specific to this inmate. The court found the deputy acted to aid the inmate and did not knowingly disregard a substantial risk of harm. The Eleventh Circuit held the deputy did not violate the inmate’s constitutional rights and was entitled to qualified immunity. It vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the deputy. View "Gantt v. Everett" on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old boy and his friend were waiting for transportation under a carport near the boy’s home when they were approached by an off-duty Baltimore City police officer who had just returned from firearms training. The officer, dressed in plain clothes and carrying a loaded handgun, questioned the boys about their presence in the neighborhood. After a brief exchange, the officer brandished his gun at “low ready,” causing the boys to fear for their lives. The incident had a lasting traumatic effect on the boy, resulting in emotional distress, behavioral changes, and ultimately leading him to attend a boarding school to distance himself from the event.The boy filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Maryland state law against the officer, the Baltimore Police Department, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the State of Maryland. All claims against the institutional defendants were dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and some claims against the officer were dismissed at summary judgment. At trial, the district court submitted to the jury both constitutional claims and state law gross negligence claims, including gross negligence in the officer’s capacity as a private person. The jury found for the officer on constitutional claims but found him grossly negligent as a private person, awarding $250,000 in compensatory damages for emotional harm. The officer moved to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, arguing lack of notice on the private person claim and excessiveness of damages, but the district court denied the motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence as a private person and that the officer had notice of this claim. The court rejected the officer’s arguments regarding supplemental jurisdiction, plain error in jury instructions, and excessiveness of damages, finding no abuse of discretion or plain error by the district court. The judgment was affirmed. View "Nicholson v. Durant" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are mental health counselors who provide “talk therapy” services, including counseling to minors, guided by their Catholic faith. Their services consist exclusively of spoken words, and they do not use physical or aversive techniques. Some of their clients, including minors with parental consent, seek counseling to address issues related to gender identity or sexual orientation, such as wanting to align their gender identity with their biological sex or to reduce same-sex attraction in accordance with their religious beliefs. The plaintiffs assert an ethical and religious duty to help clients pursue such goals if requested.In 2023, Michigan enacted laws forbidding licensed therapists from engaging in “conversion therapy” with minors, defined as efforts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, but specifically permitting counseling that assists with gender transition. The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of these laws, arguing that the prohibition restricts their speech based on its content and viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the counseling in question was conduct, not speech, for constitutional purposes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing and disagreed with the district court’s characterization of the therapy as conduct rather than speech. The court held that the Michigan law is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on speech and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The court determined that the State did not demonstrate a sufficient justification for the restriction, and that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded for prompt entry of an injunction preventing enforcement of the law during the case. View "Catholic Charities of Jackson v. Whitmer" on Justia Law

Luther Poynter was incarcerated at the Barren County Detention Center in Kentucky for contempt of court related to unpaid child support. After a brief period in COVID-19 observation, he was moved to a general-population cell with two other detainees, Scotty Wix and Timothy Guess. Both Wix and Guess had extensive histories of violent behavior and multiple documented assaults against other detainees while in the facility. Shortly after Poynter entered the cell, Guess and Wix attacked him without apparent provocation, causing a traumatic brain injury and lasting physical impairment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky reviewed the case after Poynter, through his guardian, sued the jailer and Barren County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the county, concluding there was insufficient evidence of a constitutional violation or municipal liability, and held that Poynter had not shown he was placed at a substantial risk of harm or that reasonable steps were not taken to abate that risk.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that Poynter had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Barren County had a custom of failing to properly classify detainees with violent histories, recklessly disregarded a known risk, and that this failure caused Poynter’s injuries. The Sixth Circuit clarified that municipal liability can attach even without identifying a specific individual as the violator, so long as the unconstitutional harm resulted from a municipal policy or custom. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Poynter v. Bennett" on Justia Law

A fast-casual restaurant chain hired an individual with arthritis in her knees for a cashier/service-team member position. Prior to starting, she requested to be allowed to sit for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing, due to her medical condition. The restaurant required employees in her role to multitask and maintain mobility throughout their shifts, handling various duties such as operating the register, restocking, cleaning, and serving customers. The employer concluded that her requested accommodation would prevent her from performing essential job functions and did not permit her to begin work until the accommodation issue was resolved.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky reviewed the case after the employee sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA), alleging failure to accommodate her disability and failure to engage in the interactive process. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that the requested accommodation was not reasonable as a matter of law, and that her claim regarding the interactive process could not proceed without a viable accommodation claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the employee’s proposed accommodation—sitting for five minutes after every ten minutes of standing—was not objectively reasonable because it would fundamentally alter essential functions of the cashier/service-team member position, which required continuous mobility and multitasking. The court further held that, because no reasonable accommodation was shown, the claim arising from the employer’s alleged failure to engage in the interactive process also failed as a matter of law. The judgment of the district court was therefore affirmed. View "Bowles v. SSRG II, LLC" on Justia Law

An inmate serving an indeterminate sentence of 45 years to life for first degree murder challenged the calculation of the timing for his initial youth offender parole hearing. His main contention was that under California law, youth offenders like himself should be entitled to the same categories of prison conduct credits to advance their parole hearing date as are available to other indeterminately sentenced inmates. Specifically, he argued that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) unfairly limited the use of credit categories for youth offenders, allowing only educational merit credits (EMCs) to count towards advancing the youth parole eligible date (YPED), while non-youth inmates could use a broader range of credits to accelerate their minimum eligible parole date (MEPD).The Marin County Superior Court previously denied his habeas petition. After the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, with instructions to issue an order to show cause, the matter was reconsidered. The focus of the appeal was whether the CDCR’s regulations violated statutory or constitutional rights by distinguishing between youth and non-youth offenders in the application of parole-advancing credits.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held that the CDCR’s distinction did not violate statutory or constitutional principles. The court found that the regulatory scheme giving only EMCs to youth offenders for YPED calculations, while affording more credit categories for MEPD calculations for other inmates, was rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives, including administrative efficiency and the structure of the youth parole scheme. The court also rejected due process and equal protection arguments, applying rational basis review, and concluded that the distinction was constitutionally permissible. The petition for habeas corpus relief was denied and the petition discharged. View "In re Thai" on Justia Law

In this case, an individual attended the 2022 Kentucky Derby in Louisville, Kentucky, with a group to engage in expressive activities such as preaching, distributing literature, and displaying signs near the event. The area surrounding Churchill Downs was subject to a special event permit issued by the city government, which allowed Churchill Downs to restrict access to certain public streets and sidewalks to ticket holders and credentialed individuals. The plaintiff and his group entered a fenced-off, restricted area beyond posted “No Trespassing” signs, despite lacking event tickets or credentials. After repeated warnings from private security and law enforcement, the plaintiff was arrested by a Kentucky State Police trooper for criminal trespass.The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his free speech, free exercise, and due process rights, as well as a Monell municipal liability claim against the city government and claims against the arresting officer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. It found the free speech restriction content-neutral and justified under intermediate scrutiny, concluded the free exercise claim was not properly developed, determined the permitting scheme was not unconstitutionally vague, dismissed the Monell claim for lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and granted qualified immunity to the arresting officer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the restricted area was a limited public forum and the ticketing and access restrictions were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. The court found no evidence of viewpoint discrimination, held that ample alternative channels for communication existed, and determined that the plaintiff failed to preserve his free exercise claim and did not establish a due process violation. The Monell claim failed for lack of a constitutional violation, and qualified immunity was properly granted to the officer. View "Blankenship v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't" on Justia Law

The plaintiff claimed that Michigan had taken custody of between $200 and $600 in unclaimed property belonging to her. She alleged that, under Michigan’s Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, the state would return her property if she requested it but would not pay her any interest earned while the property was in the state’s custody, unless the property was originally interest bearing. Without first submitting a claim to reclaim her property, she brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials responsible for Michigan’s unclaimed property program, arguing that the state’s failure to pay interest amounted to an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of herself and a putative class.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed her case, concluding that she lacked Article III standing because Michigan law did not grant her a property right to interest earned on her unclaimed property. The district court reasoned that, without such a property right, she could not demonstrate an injury from the state’s retention of interest.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff had standing, as her complaint alleged a concrete financial injury: the state’s withholding of interest that she claimed was rightfully hers. The court held that the district court improperly conflated the merits of whether she was entitled to interest with the standing inquiry. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and remanded for further proceedings, emphasizing that the record was insufficient to resolve the merits of the takings claim at this stage. View "Hendershot v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Police investigating a fatal drive-by shooting in Philadelphia identified several suspects, including T.C., and obtained an arrest warrant for him. Detectives used multiple databases, including CLEAR and police records, to determine T.C.’s last known address, which pointed to 4838 Stenton Avenue. Believing T.C. resided there, detectives and a SWAT team executed the warrant early one morning. Instead of finding T.C., officers encountered Richard Miller and Tonya Crawley, who had lived at the residence for two years and were not connected to T.C. The officers detained Miller and Crawley briefly and then left after learning T.C. was not present. T.C. was later located and cleared of wrongdoing.Miller and Crawley sued the involved officers and the City of Philadelphia in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers lacked probable cause and violated the Fourth Amendment, and that the City failed to train or supervise its officers. The District Court dismissed the municipal-liability claim for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the officers on the unlawful-entry claim, holding that they had probable cause to enter the residence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed both the dismissal and summary judgment de novo. The court held that, although the District Court incorrectly invoked the good-faith exception, the error was harmless because the officers had probable cause to believe T.C. lived at the address and would likely be home at the early hour. The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to establish municipal liability, as there was no pattern of similar constitutional violations or plausible basis for single-incident liability. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decisions. View "Miller v. City of Philadelphia" on Justia Law

Joseph Hehrer was detained in the Clinton County Jail in Michigan following charges related to operating a vehicle under the influence and a probation violation. While in custody, Hehrer began to exhibit symptoms of illness, including vomiting and abdominal pain. Over four days, jail medical staff evaluated him multiple times but failed to diagnose his underlying diabetes. Despite continued deterioration, corrections officers deferred to the medical professionals’ judgment and followed their instructions. Hehrer’s condition worsened until he was transported to a hospital, where he died from diabetic ketoacidosis.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan reviewed the estate’s claims, which included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the county and its officers for deliberate indifference to medical needs, as well as a Monell claim for failure to train. The estate also brought state-law claims against the contracted medical provider and its staff. A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to the county and its officials on the federal claims, finding no deliberate indifference or Monell liability, and advised declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The district court adopted these recommendations and entered final judgment for the defendants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the corrections officers acted reasonably by deferring to medical staff and did not act with deliberate indifference under the applicable Fourteenth Amendment standard. The court further held that the estate failed to show a pattern or obvious need for additional training to support Monell liability. Finally, the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. View "Hehrer v. County of Clinton" on Justia Law