Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

In the spring of 2020, a woman with a history of severe mental illness was detained at the Bucks County Correctional Facility after an altercation with a neighbor. While in custody, she was allegedly subjected to repeated uses of force by corrections officers, including being pepper sprayed, handcuffed, and placed in a restraint chair on multiple occasions. The complaint asserts that these actions were taken as punishment for her inability to comply with directives due to her mental illness, and that she did not pose a threat to staff or other inmates. Her condition deteriorated significantly during her detention, leading to her eventual transfer to a mental hospital, by which time she was reportedly catatonic and unresponsive.Her parents, acting on her behalf, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Bucks County and various corrections officers, alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. The court reasoned that the complaint was not detailed enough to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct, and that further factual development was necessary.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Third Circuit held that when a complaint plausibly alleges a constitutional violation but lacks sufficient detail to assess whether the right was clearly established, qualified immunity cannot be granted at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court concluded that the defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity was not apparent from the face of the complaint and remanded the case for limited discovery to develop the facts necessary for a proper qualified immunity analysis. View "Stringer v. County of Bucks" on Justia Law

In this case, inmate Kyle Richards alleged that Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, sexually harassed him and other inmates. Richards also claimed that Perttu destroyed his grievance documents and retaliated against him for attempting to file them. Richards sued Perttu under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his First Amendment right to file grievances. Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards had failed to exhaust available grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Magistrate Judge found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Richards was excused from exhausting his claims due to Perttu's interference and held an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Richards's witnesses lacked credibility and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The District Court adopted this recommendation. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when the resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff's substantive case.The Supreme Court of the United States held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that factual disputes regarding legal claims go to the jury. The PLRA is silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, and this silence indicates that the usual practice should be followed. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. View "Perttu v. Richards" on Justia Law

Plaintiff SeanPaul Reyes, who frequently posts videos of his interactions with police on YouTube, challenged a New York City Police Department (NYPD) policy that prohibits video recording inside police facilities. Reyes, who had been arrested twice for recording inside police stationhouses, argued that the policy violated his rights under the First Amendment and the New York State and New York City Right to Record Acts (RTRAs). He sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the City from enforcing the policy and to remove signs stating the policy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Reyes a preliminary injunction based on his state and local law claims, despite finding that he was unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim. The court concluded that Reyes demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his RTRAs claims, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored an injunction.The City of New York appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the district court erred in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state and local claims and in finding that Reyes met the requirements for a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction or its determination of irreparable harm. However, the court noted that the resolution of whether Reyes is likely to succeed on the merits and whether the public interest favors an injunction depends on the interpretation of the RTRAs.Given the lack of clear guidance from New York courts on whether the RTRAs afford a right to record inside police stationhouses, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Does either N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p or N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 14-189 afford individuals the right to video record law enforcement activities inside public facilities, specifically inside the publicly accessible lobbies of police stationhouses, notwithstanding the NYPD policy forbidding such recording? The decision on the appeal is reserved pending the response from the New York Court of Appeals. View "Reyes v. City of New York" on Justia Law

Dr. Sari Edelman, a female rheumatologist, was employed by the New York University (NYU) hospital system. After nearly five years of employment without disciplinary issues, she had disputes with Joseph Antonik and David Kaplan regarding her office space. Edelman claimed that Antonik used a gender-based slur and behaved aggressively, and that Kaplan's subsequent handling of the issue was discriminatory. She lodged complaints with NYU human resources, alleging gender discrimination and hostile behavior. Her employment contract was not renewed the following year, leading to her termination.Edelman sued various NYU entities and individual employees, asserting claims under the federal and New York Equal Pay Acts, Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of some defendants and dismissed certain claims. The jury found in favor of Edelman on her retaliation claims against NYU and Antonik, awarding her $700,000 in damages, but found for the defendants on all other claims. The District Court later granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) for the defendants, vacating the jury's verdict in favor of Edelman.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts in Edelman's favor on her retaliation claims against NYU and Antonik. The court vacated the District Court's grant of JNOV for these claims and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict. The court also vacated the District Court's decision granting JMOL in favor of Kaplan on the retaliation claim and remanded for a new trial on that claim. The judgment on the remaining claims was affirmed. View "Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the ward map adopted by the Jersey City Ward Commission following the 2020 federal census. The Commission found a 59% population deviation between the most and least populous wards, which exceeded the maximum allowed by the Municipal Ward Law (MWL). The Commission created a new map with a 1.8% deviation and revised the boundaries of all six wards. Plaintiffs, including individuals and community organizations, argued that the new map failed to meet the MWL’s compactness requirement and violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution. They also claimed a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA).The trial court concluded that the Commission’s map created sufficiently compact wards under the MWL and dismissed the plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims. The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the MWL claims, remanding for factfinding on whether the Commission’s determination of compactness had a rational basis. It affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims.The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the MWL, equal protection, and NJCRA claims. The Court held that the Commission’s map was a proper exercise of its discretion under the MWL. It found that the Commission was not required to use mathematical measures of compactness or consider communities of interest in its determination. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s remand for additional factfinding, reinstating the trial court’s judgment on the MWL claim. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection and NJCRA claims, concluding that the Commission’s compliance with the MWL negated the equal protection claim and that no statutory or constitutional violation occurred to support the NJCRA claim. View "Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, a middle school teacher and an assistant principal, were employed by a school district in Oregon. They created the "I Resolve" campaign, which included a website and a video uploaded to YouTube, advocating for policies on gender identity, parental rights, and education. They used their own devices and time but also sent emails from their school accounts to district employees with links to the campaign. Following complaints from employees, students, and concerned citizens, and an independent investigator's determination that they violated district policies, the district terminated them but later reinstated them and transferred them to other positions.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment in favor of the school district and individual defendants on all claims. The plaintiffs alleged that their termination was in retaliation for their protected speech and that they were discriminated against based on their religion and viewpoint. The district court concluded that the defendants' interests in avoiding disruption outweighed the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's summary judgment. It held that there were genuine disputes regarding the circumstances of the plaintiffs' expressive conduct and the extent of the resulting disruption. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claim for damages due to qualified immunity but vacated the summary judgment for the district on the First Amendment claim for damages and the related claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court also vacated the summary judgment on the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim and the Title VII claim, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the credibility of the district's proffered reasons for the terminations. View "DAMIANO V. GRANTS PASS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7" on Justia Law

Ryan Barry, a probationer subject to warrantless search conditions, was implicated in drug trafficking by an anonymous tipster who reported that a person named "Ryan" was selling drugs from an apartment in Van Nuys, California. The tipster also mentioned that "Ryan" drove a red convertible Ford Mustang. Officer Giovanni Espinoza of the LAPD investigated and found Barry, who matched the description and was on post-release community supervision for felony convictions. Barry was observed driving a red Mustang near the apartment. During a subsequent encounter, Barry was found with drugs and did not deny living at the apartment when informed of the impending search. Barry's possession of a key to the apartment further supported the officers' belief that he resided there.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Barry's motion to suppress the evidence found in the warrantless search of the apartment, as well as his request for an evidentiary hearing. Barry entered a conditional plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the suppression motion, and was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the search was consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the standard articulated in United States v. Grandberry, which requires probable cause to believe that a parolee resides at the location to be searched. The court found that the totality of the circumstances, including Barry's responses to Officer Espinoza, the anonymous tip, and Barry's possession of a key, established probable cause that Barry resided at the apartment. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "USA V. BARRY" on Justia Law

Curtis Walker, who was 17 years old when he committed murder, was sentenced to life in prison with a parole eligibility date set for 2071, effectively making it a life-without-parole sentence. After serving nearly 30 years, Walker sought postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment based on a series of Supreme Court decisions regarding juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole. Walker's request for a "meaningful opportunity" to demonstrate his rehabilitation was denied by the Wisconsin state courts, prompting him to file a federal habeas corpus petition.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied Walker's postconviction motion, holding that his sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment because the sentencing judge had considered his youth and its attendant circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review. Walker then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as untimely and without merit, concluding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply Supreme Court precedent, particularly in light of the decisions in Miller v. Alabama, Montgomery v. Louisiana, and Jones v. Mississippi. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the Supreme Court's precedents did not clearly establish a categorical prohibition against sentencing corrigible juvenile offenders to life without parole. View "Walker v Cromwell" on Justia Law

Kenneth Anderson, Jr. was involved in a car accident in Harris County, Texas, and was found by Deputy Crystal Estrada in a drug-induced state. Anderson was initially compliant but later became uncooperative and resisted officers' attempts to secure him in a police vehicle. Deputy Mohanad Alobaidi used a taser in drive-stun mode on Anderson multiple times during the struggle. Anderson was later found unresponsive and pronounced dead at the hospital.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed several claims against the officers but allowed an excessive force claim against Alobaidi and bystander liability claims against the other officers to proceed. The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity on these claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Alobaidi's use of force was not objectively unreasonable given Anderson's active resistance, the seriousness of the DUI offense, and the threat posed to the officers. The court concluded that Alobaidi's actions were measured and proportional to Anderson's escalating resistance, and therefore did not violate Anderson's Fourth Amendment rights. Consequently, the bystander liability claims against the other officers were also dismissed. View "Anderson v. Estrada" on Justia Law

Marqus Patton was convicted by a Nebraska jury of first-degree murder and using a deadly weapon during a robbery following the attempted robbery and fatal shooting of Kristopher Winters. Patton filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), alleging that his due process rights were violated because the State failed to disclose tacit plea agreements with two witnesses, Emily Gusman and Drake Northrop, who testified against him at trial.The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Patton’s habeas petition but granted a certificate of appealability. The district court was skeptical about the absence of agreements but concluded that the Nebraska Supreme Court’s finding that no tacit plea agreements existed was not unreasonable. The district court also found that any undisclosed agreements would not have been material to the trial's outcome due to the extensive cross-examination of the witnesses.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that the Nebraska Supreme Court had determined there were no tacit plea agreements, and this conclusion was not unreasonable based on the evidence. The court emphasized that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a state court’s factual determinations are presumed correct unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Eighth Circuit found that the evidence supported either conclusion regarding the existence of tacit plea agreements and that the state court’s determination was reasonable.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Patton’s habeas petition, concluding that the state court’s adjudication did not involve an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Patton v. Boyd" on Justia Law