Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

MHFS filed suit against the County, the Commission, and others for interfering with its business operations at the Baxter County Airport. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing MHFS's claims for breach of contract where MHFS did not allege any breach of contract distinct from the breach of the duty to act in good faith; Arkansas law does not recognize a "continuing tort" theory; even if the court were to assume such acts were intentional, MHFS failed to state a claim for intentional interference with its business relationship; the district court correctly dismissed MHFS's civil rights claims for denial of procedural due process where MHFS was not deprived of any property or liberty interest; the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend following its dismissal of the action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Mountain Home Flight Service v. Baxter County, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the officer who restrained him while executing a search warrant. Even assuming without deciding that the officer recklessly disregarded the misleading effect that omitting the facts at issue would have on the judge's probable cause determination, the officer was still entitled to qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that the evidence submitted to the judge would have been sufficient to support a probable cause finding even if the officer's oral affidavit had included the omitted facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officer. View "Block v. Dupic" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Erik Kirk Kolski, filed suit against the City and police officers, alleging that defendants violated Kolski's constitutional rights when the officers used deadly force against Kolski during a response to a domestic disturbance with a weapon. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to Officers Glirbas and Cudd where the use of deadly force was constitutionally permissible because Kolski made threats and possessed a firearm. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Officers Glirbas and Cudd on the state-law claims on the basis of official immunity where plaintiff identified no evidence showing that the officers intentionally committed an act that they had reason to believe was prohibited and, instead, the evidence demonstrated that they acted reasonably in response to a significant threat of death or physical injury. View "Smith v. City of Brooklyn Park, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the State for violating section 102(a) of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a), and against Judge Gaertner, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for retaliating against her for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech. The court concluded that plaintiff was not an eligible employee covered by the FMLA because she was a member of the personal staff of the judge, who held a public elective office; although plaintiff's blog posts and other speech discussed her own case in detail, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's speech related to a matter of public concern; plaintiff's actions were sufficient evidence of disruption; plaintiff did not cite clearly established law putting the judge on notice that Pickering balancing in a situation such as this would fall in plaintiff's favor, nor did the court identify any such case law; and the district court correctly determined that the judge was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's section 1983 claim where the judge did not have notice that his termination of an insubordinate employee who compromised the propriety and efficiency of his courtroom could violate her right to free speech. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hemminghaus v. State of Missouri, et al." on Justia Law

The EEOC filed suit against Audrain, alleging that Audrain violated federal civil rights statutes by refusing to consider David Lunceford to a vacant operating room nurse position on the basis of his sex. The district court concluded that Lunceford did not suffer an adverse employment decision because he never completed a Request for Transfer form so Audrain never made a decision to deny him the position. In light of the evidence, the court concluded that Lunceford did not make every reasonable attempt to convey his interest in the position and the district court did not err in concluding that the EEOC did not establish a claim of employment discrimination. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "EEOC v. Audrain Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that, during his incarceration as a pretrial detainee, he received constitutionally deficient medical care and that medical officials used excessive force against him while responding to his medical emergency. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Dr. Johnson's motion for summary judgment where plaintiff failed to show that the doctor acted with deliberate indifference; affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Nurse Smith where plaintiff has not identified any evidence that the nurse ever refused or failed to treat him; affirmed the grant of Nurse Anderson's and Nurse Washburn's motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive-force claim; and concluded that, in this case, a nurse's act of hitting plaintiff's nose was a de minimus use of force that was not actionable under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Tucker v. Holladay, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against the County and the sheriff after he was terminated as deputy sheriff. The court concluded, under the Pickering/Connick balancing test, that at least some of plaintiff's campaign speech does not merit First Amendment protection; that even if plaintiff's speech was fully protected by the Constitution, the sheriff could have reasonably believed that the speech would be at least potentially damaging and disruptive of the discipline and harmony of and among coworkers in the sheriff's office and detrimental to the close working relationships and personal loyalties necessary for an effective and trusted local policing operation; considering North Dakota law and well-established federal and state jurisprudence, the sheriff could have logically and rationally believed that his decision to terminate plaintiff was well within his duties as a public official; and that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity to shield him from any liability. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of the sheriff's motion for summary judgment. View "Nord v. Walsh County, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a public transit officer and Metropolitan Council under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officer violated plaintiff's constitutional rights when the officer arrested plaintiff at a downtown bus stop. The court concluded that the officer had at least arguable probable cause for the arrest based on plaintiff's nonverbal conduct and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim; though the court agreed that the use of force in this case may have been unreasonable, and acknowledged that plaintiff described being pepper sprayed as a painful experience, plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence that he suffered more than de minimus injury; therefore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim; the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's retaliatory arrest claim because the officer had at least arguable probable cause for the arrest; but the officer was not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity from plaintiff's retaliatory use of force claim where plaintiff's First Amendment right to make comments and to obtain the officer's badge number was not clearly established at the time. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Peterson v. Kopp, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. The court concluded that plaintiff was unable to show a prima facie case of discrimination because he failed to show circumstances which would give rise to an inference of discrimination. Plaintiff also failed to show direct or inferential evidence his employer engaged in retaliation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Young v. Builders Steel Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, CBE, under 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBE. The court concluded that, even considering the otherwise time-barred acts that were similar to the acts that occurred within the limitations period, plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her hostile work environment claim. The twelve incidents of alleged harassment that occurred after March 1, 2007, as well as the similar acts that occurred before then, taken together are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to show that plaintiff's work environment was objectively offensive. Having affirmed the district court's decision on the hostile work environment claim, the court need not further address plaintiff's constructive discharge claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Clay v. Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law