Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around the petitioner, Tom Nichols, also known as Nikki, who is currently serving a prison sentence for sex crimes against children. Nikki, a transgender woman in the process of transitioning, filed a petition for a sealed-record name change, arguing that an open-record proceeding could jeopardize her safety due to her gender identity.The District Court of the Third Judicial District initially denied Nikki's petition. The court's decision was based on the fact that Nikki failed to demonstrate probable cause that her safety was at risk, a requirement under Section 27-31-201, MCA, for a petition to proceed on a sealed-record basis. The court also had to be satisfied that the petitioner was not attempting to avoid debt or hide a criminal record.Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that district courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a petition for a sealed-record name change. The Supreme Court would only reverse a district court decision if it was arbitrary or exceeded the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. In this case, the Supreme Court found that Nikki failed to provide specific instances of abuse or explain why an open-record proceeding would change her circumstances at the Montana State Prison. Furthermore, Nikki did not provide any support for the alleged risk of harm from members of the public. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the evidence was insufficient to support Nikki’s petition. View "In re Name Change of Nichols" on Justia Law

The case revolves around June LaMarr, an employee at the University of California Davis Medical Center, who was transferred to a different department following performance issues and conflicts with her supervisor. The transfer was initially temporary, but later became permanent, resulting in a decrease in LaMarr's pay. LaMarr sued the Regents of the University of California, alleging that her due process rights were violated as she was not provided a hearing under Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. before her demotion.The trial court found in favor of the Regents. It concluded that LaMarr was not deprived of due process when she was offered the option to either transfer to a non-supervisory position with reduced pay or return to her higher paying supervisory position and face possible termination proceedings. The court reasoned that the Regents never issued a notice of intent to dismiss and that LaMarr's feeling of duress did not trigger due process protections.In the Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District, LaMarr appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the finding lacked substantial evidence. She contended that she was not informed of the adverse consequences of accepting a transfer and that her acceptance of the transfer was not voluntary.The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. It found substantial evidence that the Regents did not violate LaMarr's due process rights because she was never notified of an intent to terminate and any demotion was voluntary. The court also noted that a difficult choice is not the same as an involuntary choice. It concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the Regents did not deprive LaMarr of due process. View "LaMarr v. The Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Richard Rodgers, a prisoner with a history of scoliosis and back pain, had steel rods implanted in his back prior to his incarceration. During his time in prison, the rods broke, but this went undetected for over a year due to two radiologists misreading his x-rays. The prison's primary care physician, Dr. William Rankin, discovered the broken rods and arranged for corrective surgery. Rodgers sued the radiologists and Dr. Rankin, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.The district court dismissed Rodgers' claims against the radiologists, finding that he did not state a viable constitutional claim against them. The court allowed Rodgers to proceed against Dr. Rankin but eventually granted summary judgment in his favor. The court found that Rodgers had not provided evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that Dr. Rankin had violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference toward Rodgers' serious medical condition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. The court agreed that Rodgers' allegations against the radiologists amounted to no more than negligence, which is insufficient to state a viable Eighth Amendment claim. Regarding Dr. Rankin, the court found that the evidence would not support a reasonable finding that he acted with deliberate indifference to Rodgers' serious medical condition. The court noted that Dr. Rankin was the one who discovered the radiologists' errors and arranged for Rodgers' corrective surgery. View "Rodgers v. Rankin" on Justia Law

The case involves Jennifer Root Bannon, who sued six law enforcement officers and the City of Boston on behalf of her brother's estate. Her brother, Juston Root, was fatally shot by the officers after a series of events that began with him pointing a gun at a hospital security guard and a responding police officer, leading the officers on a high-speed chase, and disregarding police instructions to drop his weapon. Bannon claimed that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances during the fatal shooting and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court also held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and affirmed the grant of summary judgment on Bannon's other claims. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that the officers acted unreasonably in employing deadly force against Root in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court also independently concluded that the officers were entitled to summary judgment on Bannon's § 1983 and MCRA claims based on qualified immunity. View "Bannon v. Godin" on Justia Law

The case involves a lawsuit filed by the family of Kyle Hart against the City of Redwood City and its police officers, following Hart's death in a police shooting. Hart, who was attempting suicide with a knife in his backyard, was shot by Officer Gomez when he approached the officers with the knife despite commands to drop it. The family alleged constitutional and state law violations arising from the shooting.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Officer Gomez's claim of qualified immunity at summary judgment. The court found that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, relying on a previous court decision that stated it was objectively unreasonable to shoot an unarmed man who had committed no serious offense, was mentally or emotionally disturbed, had been given no warning of the imminent use of such a significant degree of force, posed no risk of flight, and presented no objectively reasonable threat to the safety of the officer or other individuals.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Officer Gomez was entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that Hart posed an immediate threat when he rapidly approached the officers brandishing a knife and refusing commands to drop it. Furthermore, even if Officer Gomez’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity because the conduct did not violate clearly established law. None of the cases the plaintiffs identified would have put Officer Gomez on notice that his actions in this case would be unlawful. View "Hart v. City of Redwood City" on Justia Law

Kevin D. Jones, an attorney, held a term position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before transferring to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). At the USDA, Jones primarily provided advice and counsel regarding discrimination complaints filed against the agency and litigated ensuing discrimination claims before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At the ATF, Jones served as an advisor to the Professional Review Board (PRB) as part of a team of attorneys in the Management Division of the ATF Office of General Counsel (OGC). After three months at the ATF, Jones was asked to resign due to his lack of contract law experience. Jones filed a complaint alleging discrimination and lack of due process in his termination.The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed Jones's administrative appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Judge (AJ) of the MSPB found that Jones was not an "employee" as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7511(a)(1)(B) because his positions at the USDA and ATF were not the same or similar. The AJ noted several distinctions between the tasks Jones performed at each agency. Jones did not appeal the Initial Decision to the full Board, so the AJ’s Initial Decision became the Final Decision of the Board.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the AJ did not err in her determination that Jones's positions at the USDA and ATF were not similar. The court also found that the AJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Jones's appeal. View "Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board" on Justia Law

The case involves RaySean Barber, an inmate in the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS), who was diagnosed with a mental illness. Barber refused treatment with antipsychotic medications, leading DCS medical staff to apply for a series of involuntary medication orders (IMOs) authorizing monthly injections of the antipsychotic medication Haldol against his will. Barber filed a lawsuit against the State of Nebraska under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), alleging that DCS employees were negligent in applying for, ordering the initiation and continuation of, and upholding the IMOs.The State moved to dismiss Barber's complaint, arguing that the claim was barred by the STCA’s exemption for any claim arising out of battery. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the unconsented and involuntary injection is the cause of Barber’s alleged injury—a battery.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that Barber's claim—that DCS staff negligently subjected him to an IMO and injected him with Haldol against his will—is a claim that arises out of a battery. The court held that because Barber's claim arose out of a battery, it is barred by the exemption in the STCA. View "Barber v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Tammie Terrell, an African-American nurse, applied for a Chief Nurse position at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital but was not selected. She sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Title VII, alleging race and national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and a discriminatory and retaliatory hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary on all counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that Terrell failed to provide evidence that her race or national origin was a but-for cause of her non-selection or that it tainted the hiring process. The court also found that Terrell did not engage in any protected Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) activity that could form the basis for a retaliation claim. Furthermore, the court found that Terrell did not provide evidence that she experienced a hostile work environment due to her race, national origin, or EEO activity.Finally, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Terrell's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, finding that Terrell was attempting to relitigate her case and present evidence that she could have raised at the summary-judgment stage. View "Terrell v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs" on Justia Law

Matthew Meinecke, a devout Christian, was arrested twice by Seattle police for refusing to move from public locations where he was reading Bible passages. The first incident occurred at an abortion rally and the second at an LGBTQ pride event. In both instances, Meinecke was asked to move after attendees began to physically assault him. Instead of dealing with the perpetrators, the police arrested Meinecke for obstruction. Meinecke sued the City of Seattle and certain Seattle police officers, seeking to prevent them from enforcing "time, place, and manner" restrictions and applying the City’s obstruction ordinance to eliminate protected speech in traditional public fora whenever they believe individuals opposing the speech will act hostile toward it.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Meinecke's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, reasoning that the officers' actions were content neutral and did not aim to silence Meinecke. The court also expressed concern about the vague request for injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Meinecke has standing to pursue prospective injunctive relief, given that the City has twice enforced its obstruction ordinance against him, he has stated that he will continue his evangelizing efforts at future public events, and the City has communicated that it may file charges against him for doing so. The court found that Meinecke established a likelihood of success on the merits of his First Amendment claim. The restrictions on his speech were content-based heckler’s vetoes, where officers curbed his speech once the audience’s hostile reaction manifested. Applying strict scrutiny, the court held that there were several less speech-restrictive alternatives to achieve public safety, such as requiring protesters to take a step back, calling for more officers, or arresting the individuals who ultimately assaulted Meinecke. The court also held that Meineke established irreparable harm because a loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes an irreparable injury, and the balance of equities and public interest favors Meinecke. The case was remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion in favor of Meinecke. View "Meinecke v. City of Seattle" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit brought against the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) by four parents who were convicted of sex offenses and were on mandatory supervised release (MSR). The plaintiffs challenged an IDOC policy that restricts contact between a parent convicted of a sex offense and their minor child while the parent is on MSR. The plaintiffs argued that this policy violates their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process.The district court upheld the policy, with two exceptions. It ruled that the policy's ban on written communications was unconstitutional and that IDOC must allow a parent to submit a written communication addressed to their child for review and decision within seven calendar days. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the policy's restrictions on phone and in-person contact.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the district court that the policy does not violate procedural due process. However, it held that the policy's ban on phone contact violates substantive due process. The court found that call monitoring is a ready alternative to the phone-contact ban that accommodates the plaintiffs’ right to enjoy the companionship of their children at a de minimis cost to IDOC’s penological interests. View "Montoya v. Jeffreys" on Justia Law