Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Three-month-old La’Mello Parker died during a confrontation between his father, Eric Smith, and law enforcement. Smith, a fugitive wanted for double homicide, used La’Mello as a human shield and fired at officers, who returned fire, killing La’Mello. La’Mello’s grandfather and brother sued various law enforcement entities and officers, alleging constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the case, finding that the officers’ actions did not constitute constitutional violations and that they were protected by qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claims, stating that the conduct did not shock the conscience, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the officers did not violate La’Mello’s Fourth Amendment rights as their use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court noted that Smith posed a grave and immediate threat, and the officers’ decision to return fire was justified. The court also found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that their conduct was unconstitutional. Additionally, the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment claims failed as the officers’ actions did not shock the conscience. The court concluded that without an underlying constitutional violation, the bystander liability and municipal liability claims also failed. View "Estate of Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The case involves Deliezha Davonte Gravely, who was pulled over by a police officer for speeding. During the stop, the officer discovered that Gravely was driving with a revoked license due to a DUI and found a loaded firearm in his pocket. Gravely was subsequently indicted on multiple charges, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person, based on his prior conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery.The Circuit Court of Mercer County ruled that Gravely's prior conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery qualified as a "felony crime of violence against the person of another" under West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(b). Gravely was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in classifying his conspiracy conviction as a crime of violence.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the elements of conspiracy under West Virginia Code § 61-10-31 include a violent act against a person. The court applied the elements test from State v. Mills, which requires examining the statutory elements of the predicate offense rather than the specific conduct of the defendant. The court found that the elements of conspiracy—an agreement to commit an offense and an overt act to effect the conspiracy—do not require a violent act against a person.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that conspiracy to commit first-degree robbery is not a "felony crime of violence against the person of another" for the purposes of West Virginia Code § 61-7-7(b). Consequently, the court reversed Gravely's convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and carrying a concealed firearm by a prohibited person, and remanded the case for resentencing on his remaining convictions. View "State v. Gravely" on Justia Law

Lazerek Austin, a state prisoner, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three medical providers, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin, representing himself, requested the court to recruit counsel due to his severe mental illness and lack of access to legal resources. The district court initially granted his motion for recruited counsel but was unable to find a volunteer attorney despite extensive efforts. Consequently, Austin continued to litigate his case pro se, participating in discovery and responding to motions.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that a reasonable jury could not find that they violated Austin’s constitutional rights. Austin appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not continuing to search for counsel after initially granting his motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court noted that federal courts cannot compel attorneys to provide free services to civil litigants and that the district court made reasonable efforts to recruit counsel. The court emphasized that the district court was not required to search indefinitely for a volunteer attorney and that it reasonably concluded Austin was capable of litigating his case pro se. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in its handling of Austin's motion for recruited counsel and its determination that Austin could proceed without counsel. View "Austin v. Hansen" on Justia Law

Edward B. Spencer, an indigent and incarcerated individual, filed multiple lawsuits against various California prison officials. He initially proceeded in forma pauperis (IFP) in each case. Spencer had previously filed numerous lawsuits while incarcerated, and he conceded that two of those actions resulted in strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). However, he disputed whether two other actions, which he voluntarily dismissed, should count as strikes.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California revoked Spencer's IFP status in four cases, finding that he had four strikes, including the two voluntary dismissals. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, which concluded that the voluntary dismissals counted as strikes under the PLRA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's revocation of Spencer's IFP status. The Ninth Circuit held that voluntary dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) do not constitute strikes under the PLRA. The court reasoned that the "on the grounds that" clause in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) requires grounds to be decided by a court, and voluntary dismissals do not have grounds decided by a court. Therefore, Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissals cannot count as strikes because they are never "on the grounds that" the case was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's revocation of Spencer's IFP status in each of the four cases on appeal and remanded for further proceedings. The court did not address any other issues urged by the parties. View "Spencer v. Milan" on Justia Law

A custodian for a city police department sued the city and some of its employees, claiming she experienced sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA). The custodian alleged that a deputy chief made her uncomfortable with his behavior and comments, and that after she reported this, she faced retaliation from her administrative manager, who threatened her and her coworkers.The Iowa District Court for Linn County denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the custodian's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation, except for the claim of constructive discharge. The defendants then sought interlocutory review.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the alleged harassment by the deputy chief was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support an ICRA claim. The court also determined that the alleged acts of retaliation by the administrative manager did not amount to a materially adverse action as required for an ICRA claim. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for dismissal of the custodian's claims. View "Rheeder v. Gray" on Justia Law

James Dunbar was serving a suspended sentence for criminal mischief and was on probation for being a felon in possession of a dangerous weapon. A protection order prohibited him from contacting the victim in any form. Despite this, Dunbar posted messages on his public Facebook page that referred to the victim and her deceased husband using aliases similar to their names. Some posts included threats and were intended to notify the victim. Facebook users saw these posts and informed the victim, who then viewed them.Dunbar was arrested and charged with violating the protection order and stalking. He was found not guilty on all charges. However, his probation officer alleged that these actions violated the terms of his probation, and the State moved to impose his suspended sentence. The Superior Court found that Dunbar's Facebook posts violated the protection order, thus violating his probation and suspended sentence terms. The court imposed a portion of his suspended sentence and sentenced him to twelve months in the house of corrections, all suspended, for the probation violation. Dunbar's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case. The court held that Dunbar's Facebook posts constituted indirect contact with the victim, violating the protection order. The court also determined that the posts were true threats and not protected by the First Amendment. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court's decision that Dunbar violated the terms of his probation and suspended sentence, and upheld the imposed punishments. View "State v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

Martin Misjuns, a Fire Captain and paramedic with the Lynchburg Fire Department, was terminated after posting offensive social media content targeting transgender individuals. Misjuns alleged that his termination was due to his political and religious views, which he expressed on his Facebook pages. He claimed that the City of Lynchburg and its officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights, leading to his firing.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed all of Misjuns' claims. The court found that the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities were duplicative and dismissed them. The court also dismissed Misjuns' breach of contract, equal protection, conspiracy, and wrongful termination claims. The court partially dismissed his First Amendment claims but later dismissed them entirely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Misjuns' claims. The court held that Misjuns failed to establish Monell liability against the City of Lynchburg, as he did not adequately plead that a policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional violations. The court also found that the City's Employment Policies & Procedures handbook did not constitute a binding contract, thus dismissing the breach of contract claim. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and wrongful termination claims against the individual defendants, as those claims were not asserted against the City and had been dismissed by agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that Misjuns did not sufficiently plead facts to state a claim for relief on any of his six claims, affirming the district court's decision. View "Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg" on Justia Law

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. In 2019, she applied for a management position but was passed over in favor of a lesbian woman. Subsequently, Ames was demoted from her role as a program administrator, and a gay man was hired to fill her previous position. Ames filed a lawsuit under Title VII, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.The District Court granted summary judgment to the agency, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework for evaluating disparate-treatment claims. The court held that Ames failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not show "background circumstances" suggesting the agency discriminated against majority-group members. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, requiring Ames to meet this additional burden as a straight woman.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case. The Court held that the Sixth Circuit's "background circumstances" rule, which imposes a heightened evidentiary standard on majority-group plaintiffs, is inconsistent with Title VII's text and precedents. Title VII prohibits discrimination against any individual based on protected characteristics without distinguishing between majority and minority groups. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for application of the proper prima facie standard under Title VII. View "Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services" on Justia Law

Petra Brokken sued her employer, Hennepin County, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and wrongful discharge under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute. Brokken claimed that the County's Covid-19 vaccine and testing policy conflicted with her religious beliefs. After initially granting her a religious exemption, the County revised its policy, threatening termination and loss of accrued benefits if she did not comply. Brokken retired under duress and subsequently filed her lawsuit.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Brokken's claims. The court ruled that she failed to plead an adverse employment action, did not plausibly plead religious beliefs conflicting with the County’s policy, and that the MHRA does not provide a cause of action for failure to accommodate religious beliefs. Additionally, the court found that Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute does not create a private right of action.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim under Minnesota’s Refusal of Treatment statute, agreeing that it does not create a private right of action. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Brokken’s Title VII and MHRA claims. The appellate court held that Brokken plausibly pled an adverse employment action and sufficiently alleged that her religious beliefs conflicted with the County’s policy. The court also recognized that the MHRA provides protection against failures to accommodate religious beliefs. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "Brokken v. Hennepin County" on Justia Law

Clayton Stewart was involved in a police incident where Officer Victor Garcia of the Jonesboro, Arkansas police department tased him while he was climbing a fence. Stewart fell and was paralyzed as a result. Stewart filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Garcia, Jonesboro Chief of Police Rick Elliot, and the City of Jonesboro, alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, and Stewart appealed.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine disputes of material fact that would preclude summary judgment. Stewart argued that Garcia lacked probable cause to arrest him, used excessive force, and was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He also claimed that Elliot was liable as Garcia’s supervisor and that the police department’s policies were unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that Garcia had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Stewart for misdemeanor assault and fleeing. Regarding the excessive force claim, the court found that while tasing Stewart in an elevated position could be considered deadly force, Stewart’s right to be free from such force was not clearly established at the time of the incident, entitling Garcia to qualified immunity. On the deliberate indifference claim, the court concluded that although a reasonable jury could find Garcia was aware of Stewart’s serious medical needs, Stewart failed to show that the right was clearly established, granting Garcia qualified immunity. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the supervisory liability claim against Elliot and the municipal liability claim against the City of Jonesboro, finding no evidence of a pattern of unconstitutional acts or inadequate policies. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full. View "Stewart v. Garcia" on Justia Law