Seventh Circuit: Michael Thomas v. Aline Martija

 

State law provides the rule of decision on some S1983 substantive legal questions related to the defense raised, so the assertion of the state statutory evidentiary privilege defense, although defeated by the federal rule on the privilege in question, doesn't mean that all substantive defenses have been presently waived.

Lack of notes from a deceased physician and a delay in the referral to a specialist deft present an issue for trial, as they might show either not receiving a prisoner's claim or  a deliberate indifference to the claim.

An institution-level medical director within a larger corporation is not a unilateral setter of standards for purposes of Monell liability.

Michael Thomas v.   Aline Martija

Third Circuit: HIRA Educational Services Nort v. Frank Augustine

 

Sufficient jurisdiction to review a denial of legislature members' immunity under the collateral order doctrine, since otherwise the legislators would have to participate in pretrial and discovery matters, and the question is one purely of law.

State legislators' common law federal immunity and immunity from state claims under the state constitution protect actions and speech regardless of subjective discriminatory intent.

Unlike municipal legislators who have both administrative and legislative functions, the actions of a state legislator that are legislative in nature do not have to be proven to be substantively legislative in intent and effect.  Correspondence and telephone calls relating to legislation are protected as factfinding.

Qualified immunity for political errands not within the scope of legislative immunity, as there was not any clear teaching of the courts that the allegedly discriminatory campaigning in the community was against the law.

HIRA Educational Services Nort v. Frank Augustine

Seventh Circuit: Shawn Patterson v. Matt Baker

 

Treating nurse's opinion on re-cross about whether visible signs of the described prison beating would have been expected was, at worst, harmless error in allowing an expert conclusion; plaintiff had opened the door on cross by asking on redirect if painful injuries could be sustained without leaving a visible sign.

Shawn Patterson v.   Matt Baker

Eleventh Circuit: Alberto Ruiz v. Officer Jennifer Wing, et al.

 

Since the unauthorized pro se Rule 59 motion was timely filed, by the plain terms of the rules, the time to file an appeal ran from the time that the court disposed of the motion; no merits consideration was required in order to toll the time limit.

By agreeing to the introduction of the exhibit and referring to it several times during the trial, the plaintiff waived any challenge to admissibility.  

No plain error in inappropriate remarks at trial, as they did not impair substantial rights.

No plain error in bench questioning the plaintiff during testimony.

Motion for mistrial was not properly made when court twice expressed dissatisfaction after being told that plaintiff had a motion to make.

When a plaintiff's representation agreement covers only the trial itself, a pro se motion made after the verdict is not in order if counsel has not yet formally withdrawn or the court ordered a substitution.

Alberto Ruiz v. Officer Jennifer Wing, et al.

Seventh Circuit: Anthony Kuri v. City of Chicago

 

A S1983 claim arising from pretrial detention derives from Fourth Amendment rights, not the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Given the factual circumstances, a reasonable finder of fact could have found that the detention was not justified by probable cause.

Anthony Kuri v. City of Chicago

Eleventh Circuit: Michelle Lee Helm v. Greg Carroll, et al

 

Even if no circuit precedent clearly defined the right, applying a taser to a teenager having a seizure while being held down by several police officers falls within the "obvious clarity" exception; the denial of qualified immunity was therefore appropriate.

The lack of intervention from the officer's supervisors derivatively falls within the same exception.

Even if the officer had arguable probable cause for detaining the teenager having a seizure, the manner of detention also enters into the S1983 calculus.

Michelle Lee Helm v. Greg Carroll, et al

Ninth Circuit: Lee Rice II v. Dale Morehouse

 

Appeal sufficiently indicated its scope despite not mentioning the collateral order at issue; additionally, defts did not suffer prejudice by the omission.

Reasonable finder of fact could have determined that the use of force to trip up a suspect while holding his arms was a use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.

Circuit precedent on the right to be free of nontrivial force when engaging in passive resistance sufficiently clearly established.

Lee Rice II v. Dale Morehouse

Fourth Circuit: Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc

 

Assuming without deciding that the Supreme Court holding that public sector labor unions are not able to compel representation fee payments from nonmembers is retroactive, a claim to recoup these funds under S1983 is an action for damages, not disgorgement, as the funds are no longer traceable.

Private citizens who rely in good faith on a state law later found to be unconstitutional can interpose a defense of good faith to an action for damages under the federal statute.

Assuming without deciding that the common law tort defenses at the time of the adoption of the federal statute determine which defenses are available to the statutory tort claim, the closest analogue to a private citizen's reliance on an unconstitutional state law is abuse of process, not conversion.

Ruth Akers v. Maryland State Education Assoc

Second Circuit: DeSuze et al. v. Ammon et al.

 

Statutory notice and comment provision in affordable housing rent increase procedures that places local approval prior to federal consideration do not create a procedural interest under the APA where a subsequent rulemaking reverses that order.

Statute of limitations begins to run, at a minimum, when a reasonably prudent person would have been able to determine the nature of the claim, not when the precise mechanism is explicitly  identified. (Here, apparently, when one of two APA claims became apparent.)

Relevant statutory statute of limitations is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar; the court can therefore consider a claim for equitable tolling.

As the agency actions were discrete instances, the continuing action doctrine does not save the claim against the S1983 statute of limitations.

DeSuze et al. v. Ammon et al.

Eleventh Circuit: Edeline Julmisse Prosper v. Anthony Martin

 

No error in exclusion of expert witness at summary judgment for the purposes of translating blurred video into spatial analysis, as the finder of fact would ultimately base their judgment on personal observation of the video.  No error in the exclusion of expert witness on possible medical causes of decedent's behavior, as the officer's judgment was the relevant conduct.

Video evidence does not sufficiently discredit officer's account.

Suspect's biting of the officer's finger during the struggle made shooting the suspect several times in the chest a reasonable act, as the officer feared that he wouldn't be able to defend himself if the finger were to be lost.  Earlier tasing of the suspect also held to be reasonable.

Edeline Julmisse Prosper v. Anthony Martin

Tenth Circuit: Vette v. Sanders

 

In the motion for summary judgment, the court appropriately considered and weighed verified complaint as sufficiently evidentiary, as either met the standards for an affidavit, or stated facts within the personal knowledge of the party under penalty of perjury. 

Contradictory testimonial narratives are insufficient basis for blatant contradiction exception in challenging factual determinations on appeal; there must be a visible fiction.

Documentary evidence does not utterly discredit claims of verified pleading.

Remaining claims outside the scope of review under the collateral order rule.

Violent arrest with dog was a violation of the Fourth Amendment; the precedent on use of force after the point at which the arrestee had ceased to resist constituted clearly established law.

Vette v. Sanders

Seventh Circuit: Delores Henry v. Melody Hulett

 

During visual inspections of the bodies of  convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees, the Fouth Amendment protects some right of bodily privacy.

Where such a search is used as punishment, the 8th Amendment is implicated.

In the absece of evidence that administrators have exaggerated the justification for the search, wide-ranging deference to the administrator.

Reasonableness hinges on scope, manner, justication, and place.

Claim for qualified immunity not raised in motion for summary judgment is waived for present appeal, but can be asserted on remand.  Waived defenses cannot be raised on appeal, forfeited defenses can be reviewed for plain error.

Remedy of decertification of class would require a cross-appeal.

Delores Henry v. Melody Hulett

Fourth Circuit: Colette Wilcox v. Nathan Lyons

 

Generic claim of retaliation actionable as gender discrimination under Title VII does not sound as a cause of action under S1983; Section VII explicitly includes retaliation as an actionable harm, and this would be surplussage if inherent in the right.

Circuit split flagged.

Colette Wilcox v. Nathan Lyons

Ninth Circuit: Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

 

As there was no particular and objective basis for the Terry stop and the arrest of the foreign national was effectuated by handcuffing and placing into the patrol car prior to the contact with federal immigration authorities that gave probable cause for the arrest, S1983 suit against the officer states a claim.

As the actions of the Justice of the Police who called the officer to the courtroom upon leaning from a testifying witness that the plaintiff was in the country illegally were both a but/for cause and a proximate cause of the deprivation of 4A, the JP was a sufficiently integral participant for the purposes of a S1983 claim.

Circuit caselaw was clearly established at time, holding that lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence was insufficient probable cause for an arrest for illegal entry.

Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

Sixth Circuit: Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn.

 

Sheriff entitled to qualified immunity as to S1983 claim arising from jail violence and overcrowding, as there was no personal knowledge of the specific circumstances that caused the particular harm, the claim does not establish that the Sheriff would be incompetent in thinking that the responses to the situation met constitutional muster, and there is no specific precedent indicating otherwise.

Zackery Beck v. Hamblen Cty., Tenn. 

Fourth Circuit: Robert Salley v. Paul Myers

 

Where an arresting officer later initiates a nolle prosequi, and the credibility-dependent facts of the case might allow a reasonable person to find that the plaintiff was innocent, a S1983 claim for malicious prosecution presents a genuine issue for trial -- the nolle prosequi might prove to be a sufficiently favorable termination.

Robert Salley v. Paul Myers 

Sixth Circuit: Sheila Armstrong v. Mich. Bureau of Servs. for Blind Persons

 

Arbitrator's decision that damages request was too speculative was not arbitrary or capricious, given insufficient evidence in the claim.

Federal statute providing for state administrative remedy, followed by federal arbitration, followed by Article III review provides sufficient enforcement mechanism to displace S1983 remedy.

Sheila Armstrong v. Mich. Bureau of Servs. for Blind Persons

Fifth Circuit: Green Valley Special Util Dist v. Donna Nelson, et al.

Dismissal with prejudice of a erroneous claim that an earlier decision of a regulatory body relied on a preempted state statute does not deprive the plaintiff of the right subsequently to assert the preemption of the statute as relied upon by another regulatory decision.

Dispute as to two of the parties is now moot, given private settlement of claims, and subsequent procedural steps and the possibility that an allegedly preempted statute might be relied upon in the future is insufficient to preserve a live case or controversy between the parties.

While the voiding of a past agency order is not obtainable under the Ex Parte Young exception to state sovereignty, subsequent enforcement actions in furtherance of such an order do state a claim.

As the suit is seeking a remedy in equity, the non-jurisdictional bar against S1983 claims against political subdivisions does not deprive the court of jurisdiction.

Statutory requirement of utility capability implies an inquiry into nearby infrastructure.

CJ, et al., Concur/Dissent: 

Federal statute defining utility service area applies to the degree that federal funds were used to construct the infrastructure.

Concur/Concur with Concur/Dissent:

Fact-bound decision on remand.

Concur:

Where a state law statute creating a private cause of action is preempted, the c/a can arise in equity, and where the claim presents a substantial question of federal law, there is federal jurisdiction.

Concur:

Although, by Bivvens analogy, S1983's exclusion of political subdivisions should extinguish a correlative implied cause of action in equity arising under Ex Parte Young, precedent sufficiently recognizes the validity of an equitable suit for prospective relief against state officials' actions that violate the federal constitution.

Green Valley Special Util Dist v. Donna Nelson, et

Fifth Circuit: Courtney Morgan v. Scott Freshour, et al

Execution of administrative warrant under the auspices of the state medical board and the subsequent preparation of a report is  entitled to the qualified immunity of law enforcement, not the absolute immunity of a prosecutor.

Claims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process are inherently tort claims, not constitutional violations, and do not sound in S1983 actions -- any underlying constitutional violation must be raised according to its own terms.

Remand for the district court to consider whether underlying plausible 4A claims were waived by the plaintiff's initial tort-based filing under notice pleading.

Courtney Morgan v. Scott Freshour, et al

Seventh Circuit: Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan

Allegations of politically motivated dismissal state a claim where bias is credibly alleged, and according to statute and practice, the position involved access to neither policymaking deliberations nor the politically sensitive work of the elected official.

To state a claim of a clearly established right, there is an important distinction between a murky area of the law and a well-developed but complex area of the law -- the latter allows an easier inference at the pleading stage.

Dawn Hanson v. Chris LeVan