Third Circuit: Corey Bland v. City of Newark

Qualified immunity for officers firing into car after car chase, as the chase was dangerous, the driver continued to verbally threaten them, and a recent carjacking had been armed, leading the police to think that the driver was armed.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/172228p.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Brian King v. The City of Crestwood, MO

Where plaintiff lacks standing to seek federal review of state court decision on the merits, dismissal under Rooker-Feldman is not mandatory; the case can be dismissed for standing.

Municipal court is not a policymaking authority; the outcome of an adjudication therefore can't give rise to a municipal liability claim under S1983.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/164560P.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Hal Stanley v. Katherine Finnegan

Denial of qualified immunity where reasonable suspicion is needed to remove children from the home, and the children were removed despite a plainly exculpatory visit by the agency a short time before.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/172702P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Alfredo Miranda v. County of Lake

14th Amendment and negligence claims against jail physicians for the self-starvation and dehydration death of a non-citizen arrested for evading jury service present an issue for trial when the jury might reasonably decide that the denial of treatment was objectively unreasonable.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-10/C:17-1603:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2200463:S:0

Eighth Circuit: Landon Michael v. Joshua Trevena

Denial of qualified immunity for warrantless arrest grabbing plaintiff's throat and breaking his arm with a baton, as the cause of the arrest was a nonviolent misdemeanor.  No basis for arrest, since the police officer had already decided that the statement was false, and the false staement statute requires that the statement mislead the police.

Dissent: Arguable probable cause -- might have proved confusing.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/171946P.pdf

Tenth Circuit: Clark v. Colbert

Firing of non-lethal rounds at a contained, psychotic fellow with a knife who refused to submit to arrest was not an unconstitutionally excessive use of force.

Appeal of state tort claim waived as only one of three independent grounds for denial was addressed.

Appeal of municipal liability under ADA waived for insufficient development of grounds for appeal.

Jail nurse's refusal to allow follow-up appointment with doctor, resulting in an improperly knit bone healing, did not rise to the level of conscious disregard of an excessive risk to health or safety.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-7046.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Shorter v. Baca

Plaintiff's separate challenge to a jury instruction requiring deference to jail's policies sufficiently preserved a more general challenge to the instruction.

Juries should be instructed to give deference to jail's policies only where the treatment is a necessary, justified, and proportional security-based policy.

Absent any security-based reason, deference to the policy should be denied as a matter of law.

Pretrial detainees are entitled to a grievance procedure upon changes in their classification that increases the severity of the conditions of confinement.

Deliberate indifference claims arising from medical treatment should be judged under a standard of objective deliberate indifference.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/16/16-56051.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Robin Kirkland Neal v. Daniel Ficcadenti

Given circuit precedent holding that tackling a fully compliant suspect by the legs was a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable force during arrest, police should have been aware that tackling a fully compliant suspect by the arms would similarly offend; denial of qualified immunity upheld.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/172633P.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Israel Escobar v. Lance Montee

Court does not have jurisdiction over cross-appeal in review of denial of qualified immunity, since deciding whether the police dog bites should be considered singly or as a group is not inextricably intertwined with the question of immunity for (non-dog) officers.

Qualified immunity, as it was objectively reasonable to allow the dog to continue biting the suspect until the suspect was fully handcuffed.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-10467-CV0.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Michael Holmes v. Bobby Lee Garrett

Evidence of plaintiff's prior convictions properly excluded in S1983 claim, as a "mere presence" defense does not open the door for an examination of the plaintiff's truthfulness in a S1983 suit; the question being tried is the conduct of the officer.  Additionally, not probative of plaintiff's truthfulness.

Admission of prosecutor's testimony about deft's guilty pleas, if error, not prejudicial.  Physician expert had appropriate foundation. Sufficient evidence for conspiracy, given pre-existing working relationship; sufficient evidence for state tort claims.

Conspiracy instruction did not lower the threshold; court did not err in adding a definition of "instigate" to the standard instruction; damages can be prospective under state law.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171309P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Roy Mitchell, Jr. v. Kevin Kallas

There is a genuine issue for trial where a sufficiently controlling prison physician completely denies treatment for gender issues due to the short time remaining in sentence.  Where parole conditions do not preclude such treatment, allegations that parole officers blocked treatment for gender issues presents an issue for trial.  Where disparate theories of harm arising from both incarceration and post-release restrictions have a common factual basis, a single action is permissible under statute.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-10/C:16-3350:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2184144:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Theresa Mason-Funk v. City of Neenah

Qualified immunity for police officers who killed an innocent person during a hostage situation, as the only circuit precedent holding that officials have a duty of care in such a situation was subsequently vacated as moot.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-10/C:17-3380:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:2184309:S:0

Sixth Circuit: Teresa Barry v. James O'Grady

Court has no jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal as to denial of qualified immunity when the petition argues disputed facts; any theory of appeal that holds that there is no issue for trial must construe any disputed facts in favor of the opposing party.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0136p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Arthur Mitchell v. City of Naples, et al

To present a genuine issue of material fact for trial as to the qualified immunity of the defendants in a wage discrimination claim, the plaintiff must present valid comparators with substantially similar positions.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40737-CV0.pdf

Tenth Circuit: Warnick v. Cooley

Absolute prosecutorial immunity shields prosecutors from a S1983 claim arising out of allegedly false charges, despite allegations of related unshielded conduct.

Balance of claims pleaded with insufficient particularity, leave to amend properly denied, as no draft claim was filed, no formal motion to amend was filed, and three years have passed since filing of claim.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-4065.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Scott Robinett v. City of Indianapolis

State indemnification statute's requirement that the challenged conduct be within the scope of employment is determined by the final finding of the court, not the allegations in the claim. 

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-09/C:17-2609:J:Sykes:aut:T:fnOp:N:2183558:S:0

Eighth Circuit: Sheldon Thompson v. Ray Singleton

Denial of qualified immunity upheld, as the characterization of the petitioner as confrontational was a contested fact for trial, and therefore couldn't be used to establish that there was no controlling precedent prohibiting the officer's tasing of the petitioner.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/164080P.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara

A sufficiently expansive state law of survivorship and intestate succession can bar an adopted natural child from asserting a S1983 claim, as there is no absolute right of succession implied by the purposes of the act.

Claims under the ADA and the RA are remedial in nature, not punitive; the statute-borrowing provisions of civil rights law are therefore inapplicable; there is no precedent under federal common law for allowing an adopted natural child to state a claim.

Absent a showing of a true parental relationship, an adopted natural child with a close relationship cannot state a claim under a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest.

Court properly denied leave to amend, given relevant state statute of limitations, as nature of present claim doesn't hold the door open for relation-back.

Concurrence: Adopted children can establish a 14A claim.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/03/16-17375.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Destiny Hoffman v. Susan Knoebel

Sheriff's department employees had no affirmative duty to repair systematic infractions of rights in state drug court; as their conduct was simply negligent, they were not liable for the harms under S1983.

Insufficient showing for municipal liability, since there were potentially remediatory policies in place.

Arrests with insufficient authority were an issue of state law that didn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-03/C:17-2750:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180890:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Anthony Robinson v. Alfred Perales

As plaintiff did not present claim that deft and corporate deft were linked and declined to assert strict liability of one for the other during deliberations, no error in jury finding liability for one and not the other.

Explicit provision for nominal damages did not impermissibly suggest that non-monetary damages were appropriate.

Racial epithet and disparate treatment suffices to present an issue for trial on hostile work environment.

Statement of opposing party wasn't barred as hearsay.

Triable question of retaliation given facts.

Concerted attempts to end the plaintiff's career were sufficient for the verdict.

Court did not abuse its discretion in comparing the discussion of amounts of award in plaintiff's closing with actual award in declining to award fees.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-02/C:16-3390:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2180150:S:0