Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Rocky Freeman was involved in a Brooklyn drug ring and was hired to kill a rival dealer, Freddie Gonzalez, in 1993. He was later arrested and charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with drug conspiracy, the Gonzalez murder, and the unrelated murder of Augustin Sosa. At trial, Freeman was convicted of the drug and Gonzalez murder counts but acquitted of the Sosa murder. However, his presentence report (PSR) incorrectly stated that he had committed both murders. Although a judge ordered the error corrected, the PSR was not amended, and the inaccurate report was transmitted to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Freeman subsequently endured heightened security conditions in prison, including solitary confinement and severe restrictions, which he later attributed to the erroneous PSR.Freeman discovered the error in 2015 and pursued administrative remedies, including filing an SF-95 form alleging a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) violation. He then filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the BOP, the U.S. Probation Office (USPO), his unit manager, and probation officers, alleging FTCA and Bivens claims. The District Court dismissed his FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits, and dismissed his Bivens claim for failure to serve the probation officers. Freeman appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing Freeman’s FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding that he had properly presented his claim to the appropriate agency. The court also held that the District Court improperly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s physical injury requirement to the FTCA presentment phase. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the FTCA claim and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Freeman’s Bivens claim, concluding that his claim was not cognizable under current Supreme Court precedent. View "Freeman v. Lincalis" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was stopped by police officers in Aurora, Colorado, for speeding. During the stop, the officers observed the defendant make a dramatic movement toward the passenger side of his vehicle, to the extent that he was no longer visible to them. The officers recognized the defendant as a member of a local violent gang and learned from him that he was on parole for robbery. After asking the defendant to exit the vehicle and conducting a pat-down that revealed no weapons, the officers searched the passenger seat area and found a firearm. The defendant was subsequently charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).The United States District Court for the District of Colorado held an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm evidence, which argued that the warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was armed and dangerous, based on his furtive movement, gang affiliation, and parole status for a violent crime. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was sentenced to thirty-seven months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to suppress de novo, considering the totality of the circumstances. The court held that the combination of the defendant’s dramatic movement, his recognized gang membership, and his parole for robbery provided reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous, justifying the protective vehicle search under the officer safety exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court also rejected the defendant’s constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1), finding it foreclosed by circuit precedent. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. McGregor" on Justia Law

Giovanni Irizarry Sierra worked as an Attorney Advisor for the Social Security Administration (SSA) in Puerto Rico and was terminated in March 2019 for unsatisfactory performance. He subsequently filed a complaint with the SSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (OCREO), alleging that his termination was the result of discrimination and retaliation. The OCREO reorganized his allegations, dismissing one as untimely and bifurcating the remainder into pre-termination and termination discrimination claims. The termination claim was treated as a “mixed case” because it involved both discrimination and an adverse personnel action.After receiving a report of investigation, Irizarry requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ dismissed the termination claim for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that mixed cases must proceed through the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), not the EEOC. Irizarry then appealed his termination claim to the MSPB, which sustained his removal and notified him that he had thirty days from the final decision to seek judicial review in federal district court. Irizarry did not file within that period. Later, the OCREO erroneously issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) on the termination claim, which was subsequently rescinded.Irizarry filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, relying on the rescinded FAD. The SSA moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint was untimely and the FAD was issued in error. The district court granted the motion, finding the claims time-barred and rejecting Irizarry’s arguments for equitable tolling and estoppel.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Irizarry’s claim was untimely because he failed to file within thirty days of the MSPB’s final decision, and equitable relief was not warranted. View "Irizarry Sierra v. Bisignano" on Justia Law

Residents and the municipality of Morovis, Puerto Rico, brought suit against the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) and its officials, alleging that for years, Morovis has suffered from a severe water crisis, with many residents lacking water service on most days. The plaintiffs, all PRASA subscribers, claimed that despite repeated notifications and proposed solutions—including a report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—PRASA failed to address the crisis. They alleged that sometimes the outages could be resolved by simply turning on pumps or generators, and that PRASA officials were aware of the situation but did little to provide alternative water sources or adjust billing. The plaintiffs also recounted incidents suggesting deliberate inaction or sabotage by PRASA employees.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the case in its entirety at the pleading stage, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of “shocking the conscience,” and also held that the plaintiffs’ contracts with PRASA could not form the basis of a substantive due process claim. The court did not decide whether Puerto Rico law created a protected property interest in water service.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the substantive due process claim. The First Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged government conduct that could shock the conscience, particularly under a deliberate indifference standard, given the prolonged and severe deprivation of water. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, leaving unresolved whether a protected property interest exists and whether qualified immunity applies. View "Maldonado-Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

A woman with a lifelong hearing impairment obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in New Jersey after receiving a federal exemption from the standard hearing requirement. This exemption allowed her to drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce but specifically prohibited her from operating passenger vehicles or school buses. Despite this, she was mistakenly issued state endorsements permitting her to drive such vehicles and worked as a campus shuttle bus driver for about eight months. When the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) realized the error, it revoked her passenger and school bus endorsements without providing a pre-revocation hearing.Instead of seeking review in New Jersey Superior Court, the woman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, as well as a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed some claims and ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims, finding she was not “qualified” for the endorsements and had no property interest in them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the relevant statutes because she could not meet the essential eligibility requirement of passing the hearing test for the endorsements. The court also held that, even assuming a property interest in the endorsements, due process did not require a pre-revocation hearing given the state’s strong safety interests and the availability of post-deprivation remedies. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Parker v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization that assists individuals recovering from alcoholism and substance abuse sought to establish a group home in a New Jersey township by leasing a two-family dwelling. Before residents could move in, the township required a Certificate of Continuing Occupancy (CCO). The organization’s application for the CCO was denied by the township’s zoning officer, who stated that the intended use violated local zoning ordinances. The township’s attorney later explained that the group home was considered a “Community Residence” under state law and thus could not operate in a two-family dwelling. The organization disputed this classification but received no further response from the township.After the denial, the organization filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and sought a preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding the organization had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed that denial. The organization then filed a First Amended Complaint, which the township moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the motion, holding that the amended complaint failed to state a claim and denied leave to amend further, reasoning that prior rulings had already provided notice of deficiencies and that amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, finding insufficient factual allegations to support a plausible inference of discriminatory intent or disparate impact. However, the court vacated the denial of leave to amend, holding that the District Court erred in concluding amendment would be futile, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oxford House Inc v. Township of North Bergen" on Justia Law

A man with a prosthetic leg and wheelchair mobility visited a 7-Eleven store in California and encountered physical barriers that made access from the parking lot to the store entrance difficult. Specifically, the van-accessible parking was occupied, forcing him to park elsewhere and navigate a curb ramp with an excessive and uneven slope, which caused him difficulty and fatigue. After making a purchase, he filed suit against 7-Eleven under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging discrimination due to the store’s failure to remove architectural barriers where removal was readily achievable.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California held a bench trial. The court found that, during his visits, the plaintiff personally encountered several violations of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines related to the route from accessible parking to the store entrance. After the lawsuit was filed, 7-Eleven voluntarily remodeled the parking lot and entryway to comply with ADA standards, which mooted the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief under the ADA. However, the court determined that a violation of the ADA also constituted a violation of the Unruh Act and awarded the plaintiff $4,000 in statutory damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Title III of the ADA requires removal of architectural barriers where such removal is readily achievable, and that the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving removal is not readily achievable. The court found that 7-Eleven’s voluntary remediation demonstrated that removal was readily achievable. The court also held that a plaintiff who personally encounters an ADA violation while transacting with a business has standing under the Unruh Act, regardless of litigation motive or intent to be a customer. The case was remanded for issues related to the substitution of the plaintiff’s successors. View "GILBERT V. 7-ELEVEN, INC." on Justia Law

The defendant was apprehended after two separate incidents in which he was found in possession of firearms and drugs. In the first incident, after a car accident, he attempted to dissuade the other driver from calling the police due to the presence of contraband in his vehicle, then fled but was quickly caught. In the second incident, a traffic stop led to the discovery of additional firearms, ammunition, and drugs. He was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky calculated his base offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines as twenty-two, based in part on a prior Kentucky conviction for second-degree manslaughter, which the court classified as a “crime of violence.” The defendant did not object to this calculation at sentencing and was sentenced to 145 months in prison.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether Kentucky’s second-degree manslaughter qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines, applying plain error review because the issue was not raised below. The court held that the Kentucky statute’s “wantonness” mens rea is functionally equivalent to “recklessness” as defined in Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. 420 (2021), and does not meet the standard for a “crime of violence,” which requires purposeful or knowing conduct. The court found that the district court’s reliance on this conviction to enhance the sentence was plain error, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Tooley" on Justia Law

A group of student and parent organizations, along with individual students, brought suit against state and city officials responsible for New York City’s public education system. They alleged that admissions and screening policies, curriculum content, and a lack of teacher diversity in the city’s schools discriminated against Black and Latino students, resulting in segregation, unequal educational opportunities, and poor educational outcomes. The plaintiffs claimed these practices violated the New York State Constitution’s Education Article, the State Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Human Rights Law, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to eliminate admissions screens and address alleged discrimination.The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint, finding the issues nonjusticiable as they involved educational policy decisions reserved for the legislature. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified that decision, holding that the claims were justiciable and that the complaint stated viable causes of action under the Education Article, the Equal Protection Clause, and, as to the City defendants, the Human Rights Law. The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether its order was properly made.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint under the standard for motions to dismiss. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a deprivation of a sound basic education, as their allegations of deficient resources and discriminatory policies were vague, conclusory, and did not demonstrate a district-wide failure or causation. The Court also found that the equal protection claim lacked sufficient allegations of intentional discrimination, and the Human Rights Law claim was not supported by specific facts. The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the complaint, answering the certified question in the negative. View "IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York" on Justia Law

A transgender woman sought to compete in the women’s division of powerlifting competitions organized by a national governing body. After registering and applying for a therapeutic use exemption to take a medication as part of her gender-affirming care, she was informed that the organization’s policy categorically barred transgender women from competing in the women’s division. The organization justified its policy by asserting that transgender women have an unfair competitive advantage due to “male physiology.” The woman’s competition card was revoked, and she was denied participation.The case was first heard in the Minnesota District Court, which granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her claims of sexual orientation discrimination in both public accommodations and business, as well as sex discrimination in business, under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The district court found the organization’s policy facially discriminatory and not justified by a legitimate business purpose. However, it denied summary judgment on the claim of sex discrimination in public accommodations, citing a statutory exemption for athletic events. The court also issued injunctive relief, ordering the organization to cease discriminatory practices and revise its policy.On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment and injunctive relief, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the organization’s motivation and the applicability of the legitimate business purpose defense.The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the organization’s policy was facially discriminatory and constituted direct evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation under the MHRA. The court reinstated summary judgment for the plaintiff on the public accommodations claim, as no statutory defense was asserted. However, it found a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the legitimate business purpose defense for the business discrimination claim, affirming the appellate court’s reversal on that issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cooper vs. USA Powerlifting" on Justia Law