Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The appellant, Shawn Lee Perrot, was convicted in 2004 of multiple sexual offenses involving minors, including forcible rape, lewd acts on a child, and distribution of lewd material to a minor. After serving over 16 years of a 21-year sentence, he was paroled with specific conditions. Perrot violated three parole conditions: accessing and using computer devices, associating with known sex offenders, and possessing sexually stimulating devices. He challenged these conditions as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.Upon his release, Perrot refused to sign parole conditions, leading to civil commitment proceedings, which were later dismissed. He was evaluated as high risk for reoffending. Perrot signed parole conditions, including prohibitions on computer access, associating with sex offenders, and possessing sexually stimulating devices. He filed grievances and a habeas corpus petition challenging these conditions, which were largely denied, though he was temporarily allowed limited computer use for legal research.The Department of Adult Parole Operations filed a petition for parole revocation, alleging Perrot violated the conditions. Evidence showed he possessed multiple unauthorized devices, operated a business assisting sex offenders, and had sexually stimulating devices. The court found probable cause and revoked his parole, sentencing him to a 60-day jail term, followed by reinstatement to parole.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court rejected Perrot's claims, holding that the parole conditions were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The court found the conditions were sufficiently precise and narrowly tailored to address the state's compelling interest in preventing Perrot from reoffending. The order revoking Perrot's parole was affirmed. View "P. v. Perrot" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Pryor was stopped by police in Aurora, Illinois, after officers received a tip about drug activity linked to a van. Pryor exited the van quickly, and an officer ordered him to the ground, took him down, struck him twice, and searched him. No drugs were found, and Pryor was charged with obstructing/resisting a police officer, but the charge was later dropped. Pryor then sued several officers and the City of Aurora, alleging multiple federal and state law claims, including under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing some claims and allowing others to proceed to trial. At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims. Pryor appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its summary judgment decision and in various evidentiary and procedural rulings during the trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Pryor’s false arrest claim, finding that the officers had probable cause to arrest him for obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. The court also upheld the district court’s decision to grant qualified immunity to the officer for the leg sweep and tackle, as Pryor failed to show that the use of force was clearly established as excessive under the circumstances. Additionally, the court found that the searches conducted by the officer were proper incidents to Pryor’s arrest and were not extreme or patently abusive.The Seventh Circuit also affirmed the district court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings, including the admission of drug surveillance evidence, the exclusion of certain testimony by Pryor, and the handling of jury instructions. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in these decisions and that any errors were harmless. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in full. View "Pryor v. Corrigan" on Justia Law

Gabino Ramos Hernandez was involved in a traffic stop on July 20, 2016, where he was stopped by Laurel Police Department Officer David Driskell for failing to stop at a stop sign. Hernandez's brother, who appeared intoxicated, was also stopped. Officer Driskell called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents for translation assistance. Hernandez, who was initially waiting, decided to leave the scene and was pursued by ICE agents. During the pursuit, ICE Agent Phillip Causey shot Hernandez, who alleges he had his hands raised in surrender.Hernandez filed a lawsuit against Causey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, along with other claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the Bivens claim, stating it would expand Bivens to a new context, and dismissed the § 1983 claim, finding Causey did not act under color of state law. The court also denied Hernandez's motion to amend the complaint, deeming further amendment futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Bivens claim, agreeing that Hernandez's claim presented a new context and that alternative remedies existed. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim, concluding that Hernandez failed to allege that Causey acted under color of state law or that there was a conspiracy between Causey and state officials. The court upheld the denial of Hernandez's motion to amend the complaint, as further amendment would be futile. View "Hernandez v. Causey" on Justia Law

Jessie Grace was convicted of second-degree murder in 1994 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of probation or parole. The Louisiana Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction. Over the next 18 years, Grace filed several post-conviction relief applications, all of which were denied until 2012, when he was granted leave to reopen his federal proceedings based on newly discovered evidence. Grace obtained state grand jury testimony that revealed discrepancies between the grand jury and trial testimonies of two key witnesses: Sergeant Snow and Michelle Temple. These discrepancies suggested that another individual, Darrick Hudson, might have been involved in the crime.In 2015, Grace filed a third application for post-conviction relief in state trial court, alleging Brady violations based on the grand jury testimony. The state trial court granted his application, vacated his conviction, and ordered a new trial. The State appealed, and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit reversed the trial court's decision, reinstating Grace's life sentence. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Grace's subsequent writ application in 2019. Grace then filed a second supplemental application in federal district court, asserting a Brady claim. The district court granted relief, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings.On remand, the district court again granted Grace's habeas relief, finding that the state court erred in its consideration of the materiality of the suppressed evidence. The State appealed, and the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The Fifth Circuit determined that the state court's decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and that the suppressed evidence was not material enough to undermine confidence in the verdict. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and denied Grace's application for habeas relief. View "Grace v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Carl Grant, a Vietnam War veteran suffering from dementia and PTSD, left his home in Conyers, Georgia, on February 2, 2020, and ended up in Birmingham, Alabama. Officer Vincent Larry of the Birmingham Police Department found Grant disoriented and detained him for a misdemeanor. Grant was taken to a hospital, where he was treated for minor injuries. While being escorted to the restroom, Larry allegedly assaulted Grant, causing severe spinal injuries that led to Grant's death on July 24, 2020. William Jenkins, representing Grant's estate, filed a lawsuit against Larry, the City of Birmingham, and various city officials.The Jefferson Circuit Court granted a summary judgment in favor of the City defendants, dismissing Jenkins's claims with prejudice on February 22, 2023. Jenkins filed a postjudgment motion on March 21, 2023, which was denied by operation of law on June 20, 2023. Jenkins also filed a "motion for clarification" on April 28, 2023, which the court purported to grant on June 21, 2023, reinstating claims against Larry and Scott Thurmond. However, this order was a nullity as the court had lost jurisdiction after the postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law.Jenkins filed a notice of appeal on November 3, 2023, which was dismissed as arising from a non-final order. He then filed another appeal on January 24, 2024, which was transferred to the Supreme Court of Alabama. The Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed the appeal, instructing the circuit court to vacate its June 21, 2023, order and all subsequent orders, as they were nullities. The February 22, 2023, judgment was deemed final, and Jenkins's failure to appeal it timely resulted in the dismissal of his current appeal. View "Jenkins v. City of Birmingham" on Justia Law

Artell Young, a federal supervised releasee, was subject to a search condition allowing federal probation officers to search his person, vehicle, or home upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or release condition violations. After receiving information that Young was dealing drugs and possessing a firearm, federal probation officers searched his home, finding small amounts of crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, and marijuana. The federal authorities turned the case over to Iowa authorities, leading to Young's conviction on several drug offenses.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Young moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The district court upheld the search, citing the "special needs" exception under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8. The court also noted that the search was conducted by federal officers under federal standards, thus not subject to Iowa constitutional standards. Young was convicted by a jury of three counts of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to six years in prison.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The court held that the constitutionality of the search should be evaluated by the law of the sovereign that conducted the search—in this case, federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the search was lawful under federal standards and that the evidence obtained was admissible in the state prosecution. The court rejected Young's claim of an illegal search and affirmed his convictions. View "State of Iowa v. Young" on Justia Law

A man named Johnathon Lerke, who was under a Murphy conservatorship, challenged his confinement in a county jail while awaiting transfer to a state hospital. Murphy conservatorships are for individuals found incompetent to stand trial and deemed a danger to others. Despite being ordered to a state hospital, Lerke was held in county jail for months due to a lack of space at the hospital. He argued that his confinement in jail was unauthorized and violated his rights.The Superior Court initially found Lerke incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to a state hospital for competency restoration. After nearly two years, the hospital reported that Lerke had not regained competence. Subsequently, a Murphy conservatorship was established, requiring his placement in a state hospital. However, due to the unavailability of space, he remained in county jail. Lerke's counsel requested his release or transfer to a local psychiatric hospital, but the court denied the request, stating that he would remain in jail until a state hospital bed became available.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court concluded that no legal authority permitted Lerke’s indefinite detention in county jail pending his transfer to the state hospital. The statutory framework requires conservatees to be placed in treatment facilities that promote their treatment and protect the public, and county jails do not meet these requirements. Although the court found Lerke’s confinement in jail unlawful, it denied habeas relief because he had already been transferred to an authorized treatment facility during the proceedings. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied as moot. View "In re Lerke" on Justia Law

Nathan Wilson and Christopher Beasley were alleged to have set fire to a police car during a protest in Santa Monica, California, following the killing of George Floyd. They were federally indicted on one count of arson. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing they were selectively prosecuted based on perceived anti-government views. Alternatively, they sought discovery on their selective-prosecution claim.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the motion to dismiss but granted discovery on the selective-prosecution claim. The government indicated it would seek appellate review rather than comply with the discovery order, leading the district court to dismiss the indictment without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, which allows for government appeals in criminal cases without requiring final decisions. The court found that the district court abused its discretion by granting discovery based on an erroneous view of the law. The district court had incorrectly defined the control group for determining discriminatory effect, failing to account for relevant factors beyond committing the same crime in the same location.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s selective-prosecution discovery order and the dismissal of the indictment without prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The court did not address whether the defendants presented evidence of discriminatory intent. View "USA V. WILSON" on Justia Law

In this case, two organizations and four individuals brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Phoenix and several police officers, alleging violations of their constitutional rights during a protest outside a rally held by then-President Trump at the Phoenix Convention Center on August 22, 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that the police used excessive force and violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by dispersing the protesters with tear gas, chemical irritants, and flash-bang grenades.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona certified two classes and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except for the individual Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims asserted by three plaintiffs against certain officers. The court found that there was no "seizure" of the class members under the Fourth Amendment and evaluated the excessive-force claims under the Fourteenth Amendment's "shocks-the-conscience" test. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding no evidence of retaliatory intent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the defendants on the class claims. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the use of airborne and auditory irritants did not constitute a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment's "purpose to harm" standard applied. The court found no evidence of an improper purpose to harm by the officers.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the individual defendants on the excessive-force claims asserted by the three plaintiffs, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances or did not violate clearly established law. The court also affirmed the district court's summary judgment for the individual defendants on the First Amendment claims, finding that the officers had objectively reasonable grounds to disperse the crowd due to a clear and present danger.Finally, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment for Police Chief Williams and the City of Phoenix, concluding that there was no evidence that Williams caused or ratified the use of excessive force or that the City was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "PUENTE V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

The defendant, Angelo Clark, was charged with multiple counts of attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery following a gang-related shooting in 2013 that injured two people. Clark moved to quash his arrest, which was based on an investigative alert issued by the Chicago Police Department. The circuit court denied his motion, and Clark did not contest this denial further in the circuit court.In 2017, a jury in the Cook County Circuit Court convicted Clark of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm under an accountability theory. He was initially sentenced to 46 years in prison, which was later reduced to 32 years upon reconsideration.Clark appealed, and the Appellate Court, First District, affirmed his conviction and sentence. The appellate court rejected Clark's argument that his arrest was unconstitutional because it was based on an investigative alert rather than a warrant. The court also found no plain error in the circuit court's consideration of sentencing factors for juvenile offenders, as Clark was 17 at the time of the offense.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that warrantless arrests based on probable cause do not violate the Illinois Constitution, even if communicated via an investigative alert. The court also found that the circuit court had considered the relevant factors for sentencing juvenile offenders, as required by section 5-4.5-105(a) of the Unified Code of Corrections, and thus, there was no clear or obvious error in the sentencing process. View "People v. Clark" on Justia Law