Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

David Walton, a Wisconsin prisoner, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ashley Nehls, a prison nurse, alleging that she violated his Eighth Amendment rights by engaging in a sexual relationship with him. Walton testified that the relationship was consensual. The district court granted summary judgment for Nehls, reasoning that a consensual sexual relationship does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviewed the case and entered summary judgment in favor of Nehls. The court concluded that Walton's testimony about the consensual nature of the relationship meant that it could not be considered a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Walton appealed the decision, urging the appellate court to adopt a legal presumption that any sexual activity between a prisoner and a prison official is nonconsensual and violates the Constitution unless the prison official can show an absence of coercion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the power dynamics between prisoners and prison officials and the evolving standards of decency, noting that all 50 states have criminalized sexual conduct between prison officials and prisoners. However, the court found that even if it applied the presumption of nonconsent, the evidence in the record established that the relationship between Walton and Nehls lacked any coercive factors. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment for Nehls, leaving the broader legal question of adopting a presumption of nonconsent for another day. View "Walton v Nehls" on Justia Law

A woman, Lila B., was detained at a psychiatric hospital for a mental health evaluation due to a severe head-lice infestation. The hospital staff sought to shave her head without her consent, arguing it was necessary to treat the lice and prevent their spread to other patients and staff. Lila objected, citing her religious beliefs and the psychological impact of head-shaving.The Superior Court of Alaska authorized the involuntary head-shaving, finding that the hospital had a compelling interest in preventing the spread of lice and that shaving her head was the least restrictive means of achieving this. The court relied on testimony from hospital staff that other treatments, such as permethrin shampoo, would be ineffective due to the severity of the infestation and that isolation was not feasible.The Supreme Court of Alaska reviewed the case and held that the State must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that head-shaving is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. The court found that the State failed to meet this heightened standard. The evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish that less restrictive alternatives, such as using permethrin shampoo in conjunction with a head covering or some form of isolation, were inadequate. The court concluded that the State did not sufficiently explore these alternatives.As a result, the Supreme Court of Alaska vacated the order authorizing the involuntary head-shaving, emphasizing the need for the State to meet a substantial evidentiary burden before infringing on a patient's fundamental rights. View "In the Matter of the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Lila B." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are probationers, sued several Pennsylvania judges, probation officers, and the county warden, alleging they were detained without a finding that such detention was necessary to prevent flight or further crimes. They claimed their due process rights were violated as they were held for months without adequate preliminary hearings or credible probable-cause findings.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied a preliminary injunction and later granted summary judgment for the defendants on both claims. The court held that the plaintiffs' novel claim for a new procedural right conflicted with Supreme Court precedent and found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the county's adherence to existing constitutional rules in initial hearings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that probationers do not have a due process right to a finding of necessity before being detained between preliminary and revocation hearings. The Supreme Court's decisions in Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli established that a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing is sufficient to warrant continued detention for a reasonable time until the revocation hearing.However, the Third Circuit found material factual disputes regarding whether the county followed due process rules, particularly concerning the adequacy of notice given to probationers before preliminary hearings. The court reversed and remanded the case in part, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that the county did not follow established due process procedures. View "Horton v. Rangos" on Justia Law

In 1987, John Bejarano shot and killed Roland Wright, a cab driver, during a robbery. Bejarano was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, and other felonies. During the penalty phase, Bejarano made threatening statements to the jury, which contributed to his death sentence. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed his direct appeal and Bejarano filed several unsuccessful post-conviction petitions in state and federal courts.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Bejarano’s habeas corpus petition. Bejarano argued that the district court wrongly denied him an evidentiary hearing and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting additional mitigation evidence. The district court found that Bejarano failed to exercise due diligence in developing the factual basis for his claims and denied the evidentiary hearing. It also concluded that even if trial counsel’s performance was deficient, Bejarano was not prejudiced.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that Bejarano was not diligent in presenting his evidence in state court, and thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The court also found that Bejarano’s trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and that Bejarano was not prejudiced by any alleged deficiencies. Additionally, the court concluded that the Nevada Supreme Court provided appropriate appellate scrutiny of Bejarano’s death sentence.The Ninth Circuit denied Bejarano’s request for a certificate of appealability on three other issues, as he did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court ultimately affirmed the district court’s denial of Bejarano’s habeas corpus petition. View "Bejarano v. Reubart" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Percy Brown, alleged that he was framed by University of Louisville Police Officer Jeffrey Jewell and several Louisville Metro Police Department officers for various crimes, including kidnapping, murder, rape, sodomy, and wanton endangerment, after he refused to cooperate in a check-forging investigation. Over more than ten years, the Commonwealth of Kentucky brought and dismissed numerous charges against Brown, resulting in his spending over seven years in prison. After the final indictment was dismissed, Brown filed a lawsuit.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky dismissed Brown's malicious-prosecution claim related to the murder charge as barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that the claim accrued when the murder charge was dismissed on February 24, 2015, and thus was time-barred. The court also granted Jewell’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding Brown’s fabrication-of-evidence claim, finding it insufficiently pleaded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the malicious-prosecution claim, agreeing that it was time-barred. The court held that the murder charge was separable from the other charges against Brown, which were dismissed later, and thus the statute of limitations for the malicious-prosecution claim related to the murder charge began to run when that charge was dismissed. The court also found that the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply, as the last alleged unlawful act occurred more than a year before Brown filed his lawsuit. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. View "Brown v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government" on Justia Law

David Hieber, who led Oakland County’s Equalization Department for nearly twenty years, was terminated after an employee reported him for creating a hostile work environment. Hieber sued Oakland County and his supervisor, Kyle Jen, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of pretermination and post-termination due process, political-affiliation retaliation, and age discrimination. He also brought state-law claims for defamation and age discrimination. Oakland County and Jen moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in favor of Oakland County and Jen on all claims. Hieber appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Oakland County and Jen, in his official capacity, on Hieber’s pretermination due-process claim, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact about whether Hieber received a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges against him. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on Hieber’s post-termination due-process claim, political-affiliation retaliation claim, age discrimination claims, and defamation claim. The court also affirmed the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Jen in his individual capacity on the due-process claims.The main holding of the Sixth Circuit was that Hieber’s pretermination due-process rights may have been violated, warranting further proceedings on that claim. The court found that the investigatory interview and the pretermination hearing may not have provided Hieber with adequate notice of the charges and a meaningful opportunity to respond. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Hieber v. Oakland County, Mich." on Justia Law

Sonya Kenette Brown, a City Council member in Albion, Michigan, was prosecuted for allegedly violating a City Charter provision that prohibits council members from directing the appointment or removal of city employees. Brown claimed that her political opponents on the City Council engaged in retaliatory prosecution and arrest, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy to violate her civil rights. She also challenged the constitutionality of the City Charter provision.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Brown's claims of retaliatory prosecution and arrest, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy, finding that there was probable cause for her prosecution based on her Facebook messages. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on Brown's claim that the City Charter provision was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Brown's claims, agreeing that there was probable cause for her prosecution. The court found that Brown's Facebook messages provided sufficient evidence to believe she had violated the City Charter by directing the removal of a city employee. The court also held that the City Charter provision was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, as it provided clear standards and did not prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech.The Sixth Circuit concluded that Brown's claims failed because she could not demonstrate an absence of probable cause, and the City Charter provision was constitutionally valid. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Brown v. City of Albion, Mich." on Justia Law

Kevin Niedzialek died after being restrained by Riverside County Sheriff’s Department deputies. The deputies responded to a 911 call reporting a man having a psychotic episode. Upon arrival, they found Niedzialek bleeding from the head and acting erratically. After he advanced towards one of the deputies, they used a taser to subdue him and handcuffed him while he was prone. Niedzialek continued to struggle but eventually became unresponsive. The deputies did not move him into a recovery position or perform CPR before paramedics arrived. Niedzialek died the next day.In the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a civil jury found that the deputies did not use excessive force under the Fourth Amendment but acted negligently under California law. The jury awarded $1.5 million to Niedzialek’s successor-in-interest, Tracy Alves. The defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the jury’s mixed verdicts were irreconcilable because the legal standard for reasonableness was the same for both claims. The district court denied the motion, stating that California’s negligence standard is broader than the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the jury’s verdicts were reconcilable because California’s “reasonable care” standard considers the totality of circumstances more broadly than the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard. The jury could have found that the deputies did not use excessive force but still breached their duty of care by failing to monitor Niedzialek’s condition or place him in a recovery position. The court concluded that it was possible to reconcile the jury’s verdicts based on the evidence and theories presented at trial. View "Alves v. Riverside County" on Justia Law

Kenya Watkins, a Black woman, was employed by Genesh, Inc., d/b/a Burger King, from August 2014 to August 2015. She alleged that her manager verbally, physically, and sexually harassed her, including forcing her into a freezer, groping her, simulating sex with her, and stating she would not be promoted unless she had sex with him. Watkins filed an employment discrimination charge with the Kansas Human Rights Commission and the EEOC in early 2016. In December 2018, she alleged that Genesh admonished her then-employer, Church’s Chicken, for hiring her, leading to a second EEOC charge in 2019.In August 2019, Watkins sued Genesh in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for race discrimination. The district court dismissed her complaint, finding her allegations did not plausibly support racial harassment. The court noted that Watkins had pending EEOC charges and could file her Title VII claims once the EEOC proceedings concluded. In July 2021, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2019 charge, which Watkins did not pursue. In April 2022, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter for her 2016 charge, leading Watkins to file a second lawsuit in July 2022, raising claims under Title VII and other statutes.The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed Watkins’s 2022 complaint as untimely. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on claim preclusion grounds. The court held that Watkins’s Title VII claims were precluded by the final judgment in her 2019 lawsuit, as both suits arose from the same employment relationship. The court reaffirmed that the absence of a right-to-sue letter did not deprive Watkins of a full and fair opportunity to litigate her Title VII claims in the initial suit. View "Watkins v. Genesh" on Justia Law

Clifton White, the plaintiff, claimed that officials from the New Mexico Corrections Department unlawfully detained him beyond his release date. White argued that his sentence for violating probation was wrongfully entered and that he informed the prison officials of this error. Despite acknowledging the potential mistake, the officials continued to detain him based on a facially valid court order.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico reviewed the case and denied the prison officials' motion to dismiss, which was based on qualified immunity. The district court concluded that it was clearly established law that prison officials violate constitutional rights when they continue to imprison individuals without a lawful basis or are deliberately indifferent to such a prospect.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that no controlling Tenth Circuit law clearly established that prison officials act unlawfully when they rely on a facially valid judicial sentencing order, even if they believe the order was made in error. The court emphasized that prison officials are not required to ignore or correct a judicial sentencing order if they suspect it is flawed. The proper recourse for a defendant who disagrees with a judicial order is to appeal through the state or federal judicial process. Thus, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the law was not clearly established that the prison officials' conduct in this case was unconstitutional. View "White v. Lucero" on Justia Law