Showing posts with label S1983. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S1983. Show all posts

Tenth Circuit: Contreras v. Dona Ana County Board


(Per Curiam summary)

CJ, concurring: 

Insufficient 8A deliberate indifference claim where prison guards didn't have subjective knowledge of risk to detainee posed by leaving the cell door controls unlocked.

The situation doesn't correspond to a clearly established right -- negligence, perhaps.

Concur in part, concurring in the judgment:

Supervisor's knowledge of the risk can't be imputed to the guards.

Not a clearly established right, so no need to reach the deliberate indifference calculus, given qualified immunity.

Although there's no qualified immunity for Monell claims, the right has to be established in order to show the need to train employees.

Concurring in part, dissenting in part:

Claims against supervisor and municipality presented genuine issue for trial on deliberate indifference.

Central question on the deliberate indifference claim is whether it was reasonable to keep the controls unlocked.




Ninth Circuit: John Heineke v. Santa Clara University


Receipt of federal funds and consequent statutory nondiscrimination mandates does not make a private university into a state actor for purposes of S1983.

Sixth Circuit: Joan Weser v. Kimberly Goodson



Presence on property sufficient for criminal trespass arrest for the purposes of S1983 claim, as officer's witness of the midemeanor as required by state law isn't a requirement under the Federal Constitution.

Even deliberate mistruth would not be enough to implicate private citizen in S1983 false arrest claim, as it's not under the color of state law.

District Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over false arrest state tort claim, as arrest with probable cause for an offense not justifying custodial arrest is a novel issue for the tort.

False statements by private individual not a sufficient basis for state tort claim of false arrest, as insufficient nexus to the arrest.


Sixth Circuit: S. Jones v. City of Detroit, Mich.


Qualified Immunity for S1983 claim alleging transportation of wheelchair-bound arrestee in cargo van with insufficient restraints and headroom.

Dissent: General right of nonviolent arrestee to be free from intentional acts causing pain and dangerous situations sufficient to establish the right -- granular precedent describing wheelchairs in cargo vans is not required.





Fourth Circuit: Nathaniel Hicks v. Gerald Ferreyra


Claim that S1983 action against Park Service police for unlawfully detaining a Secret Service agent constitutes an impermissible extension of Bivvens is waived for not being raised below; District Court was not obliged to independently assure itself of the remedy's availability, and the scope of the Bivvens remedy is not a jurisdictional question.

Appeal citing deposition testimony contrary to the reading of the facts in the decision below is not a matter for interlocutory review.

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Erik McCoy

The facts that the deft was regularly selling drugs, and that he was apprehended in possession of a large amount of drugs while at work provided sufficient explanation in the warrant's affidavit for a search of the apartment that he shared with another employee to be permissible under the good faith exception.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0209p-06.pdf

.

Fifth Circuit: Constance Westfall v. Jose Luna, et al

Aggressive nature of the knock-and-talk encounter can taint the subsequent consent to search.  When the person who gave consent to the search indicates that she doesn't want the police officers to go into a certain area, consent for that part of the search is withdrawn.  In these circumstances, the qualified immunity of the police officer presents an issue for trial.

Eleventh Circuit: Bob Glasscox v. Argo, City Of, etc.

Denial of qualified immunity for trigger-happy tasing of diabetic driver.  Driver's attempt to remove one of the taser wires might have been resistance (pun?)  but as the subsequent (fourth) tasing was underway already, it wasn't excused.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616804.pdf

Third Circuit: Emil Jutrowski v. Township of Riverdale

Although a plaintiff in a S1983 suit needs to be able to identify the law enforcement officer who injured him in order to present an issue for trial, an allegation of after-the-fact conspiracy supported by omissions or inconsistencies in contemporaneous records can present an issue for trial on the same facts.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172594p.pdf


Sixth Circuit: Neil Morgan v. Fairfield Cty., Ohio

Denial of qualified immunity for municipality policy authorizing police officers to surround a house, standing 5-7 feet from it before knocking on door to discuss a possible violation of the law, as the systematic invasion of the curtilage wasn't considered.  Immunity upheld for individual officers upheld, given evolving caselaw.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0199p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit: Brittany Harris v. Kimberly Klare

Denial of qualified immunity as a matter of law for officer's search of minor during traffic stop, as there is a question of whether the officer knew that there were minimal grounds for suspicion and that a dog search had turned up nothing; denial of qualified immunity as a matter of law for consensual search, as minor plaintiff was hancuffed, surrounded by police, had been stopped for an hour, and the search was apparently a precondition to using the restroom.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0198p-06.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Estate of Derek Williams, Jr. v. Jeffrey Cline

Remand of interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity in order for the court below to make factual findings as to the defts' specific conduct.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-31/C:17-2603:J:Ripple:dis:T:fnOp:N:2211195:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Joseph Zadeh, et al v. Mari Robinson, et al

While the medical profession generally is not a closely regulated industry for the purpose of determining the legitimate expectation of privacy of its members, pain management clinics might be a different case.  Grant of qualified immunity upheld, as the scope of legitimate targets of administrative subpoenas was not clearly defined at the time.

Search not pretextual, as it was not conducted entirely to uncover criminality.

Court appropriately prudentially declined to hear application to stay state medical board's investigation, which can be considered a judicial proceeding.

Supervisor who acted according to the usual practices of the department was not deliberately indifferent to the potential harms of subdelegation.

Concur dubitante: @justicewillett -- QI problematic.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50518%20-CV0.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Marcus Mote v. Debra Walthall

Employees' rights of expressive association and freedom of speech in forming association for mutual aid and support is protected under the First Amendment whether or not state law will permit the association to become an exclusive bargaining agent for the employees.  Denial of qualified immunity upheld, as this was clearly established at the time.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40754-CV1.pdf




First Circuit: Perry v. Spencer

Qualified immunity for prison officials in suit challenging placement of inmate in segregation cells, as it was unclear at which point the due process interest arose, and safety concerns allow prison officials considerable discretion in scheduling adversarial challenges to administrative decisions.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2444U-01A.pdf

Third Circuit: Craig Geness v. Jason Cox

An argument for equitable tolling must be raised in the opening appellate brief; otherwise, it's waived.

When inquiring as to whether a nolle prosequi was a favorable determination, a court must look beyond the four corners of the order.

Given an affidavit to the contrary and absent any deposition testimony, speculation that exculpatory evidence was known at the time was insufficient to present a genuine issue of material fact.

Claim of discrimination under federal law is a new and separate claim not barred by Rooker-Feldman after earlier state court adjudication relating to the events.

Motion to amend at summary judgment stage within a year of filing is presumptively timely.





Third Circuit: Brandy Kane v. Shawn Barger

Denial of qualified immunity, as circuit precedent involving illicit videotaping of fellow officers and inappropriate physical contact with arrestees clearly established a due process right to bodily integrity that was offended by the manner of the assault investigation.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/173027p.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Marcus Muhammad v. Del Pearson

Where contemporaneous documents establish that the warrant was vague due to clerical error, and that the vagueness was resolved by actual knowledge of the officers, the question can be resolved as a matter of law.

Arguable probable cause for arrest.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:15-3044:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2204382:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Daniel Martinez v. City of Chicago

S1983 plaintiff has to carry the burden on all disputed questions, including exigent circumstances.

Probable cause for custodial detention in own home after police entry, given proximity to scene of crime. 

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-17/C:17-1888:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2203888:S:0

Fifth Circuit: Gregory Samples v. Harris County

Grant of qualified immunity for police use of taser on fellow who might have struck a fighting stance.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20350-CV0.pdf