Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, several officers, the State of Iowa, the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections (Baldwin), the Curt Forbes Residential Center, and manager of the Residential Center (McPherson), alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and several state-law negligence claims. Plaintiff was shot three times by Angenaldo Bailey. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could not conclude that Officer Mueller acted recklessly or in a conscience-shocking manner by declining to arrest Bailey before the investigation proceeded the next day; plaintiff's claim against Officers Owens, Ropp, and Crippen failed because nothing the officers did - or did not do - established either a state-created danger or special relationship that imposed on them an affirmative duty to protect plaintiff from third-party harm; the evidence did not support a finding that Officers Owens, Ropp, or Crippen were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's injuries; and because plaintiff cannot establish a constitutional violation by any of the individual City Defendants, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the City. Plaintiff's due process claims against the State Defendants rested on distinct factual allegations about whether those parties exposed her to harm by failing to take steps in response to Bailey's repeated violations of a protective order. Even if the factual record had been fully developed on those claims, plaintiff had no opportunity to make legal arguments in support of her position. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City Defendants, reversed the grant of summary judgment for the State Defendants, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Montgomery v. City of Ames, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging claims of unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code 216.6. On appeal, defendants challenged the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, arguing that they were entitled to a new trial. Defendants argued that the district court erred in overruling their objection to improper rebuttal closing argument by plaintiff's counsel, and then abused its discretion in denying defendants' post-trial motion because this argument, while improper, was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. Counsel made emotionally-charged comments at the end of rebuttal closing argument, referencing her own sexual harassment during law school and assurances to the jury that her client testified truthfully about past sexual abuse. The court concluded that the timing and emotional nature of counsel's improper and repeated personal vouching for her client, using direct references to facts not in evidence, combined with the critical importance of plaintiff's credibility to issues of both liability and damages, made the improper comments unfairly prejudicial and required that the court remand for a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Gilster v. Primebank, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, consumers, filed suit in Minnesota state court against ConAgra, claiming that some Hebrew National beef products were not, as the label reads, "100% kosher." ConAgra removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1453. The district court decided that the First Amendment prohibited the courts from adjudicating plaintiffs' legal claims and dismissed the appeal. The court concluded that plaintiffs alleged economic harm - even if only a few pennies each - was a concrete, non-speculative injury. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs' allegations failed to show that any of the particular packages of Hebrew National beef they personally purchased contained non-kosher beef. Without any particularized reason to think that plaintiffs' own packages of Hebrew National beef actually exhibited the alleged non-kosher defect, plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue ConAgra and CAFA did not extend federal jurisdiction to this case. The court vacated the district court's judgment, reversed the district court's dismissal with prejudice, and remanded with instructions to return this case to the state court for lack of federal jurisdiction. View "Wallace, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that state officials in the WRDCC's Offenders Under Treatmet Program (OUTP) violated his rights under the First Amendment. Plaintiff, as an atheist, participated in OUTP, which "had required meetings [and] invoked religious tenets by using the serenity prayer and religious meditations." Plaintiff eventually left the program and believed that he was denied an early release on parole for failure to complete OUTP. The court concluded that whether plaintiff's withdrawal from the program was indeed voluntary or was the result of coercion was yet to be determined; therefore, dismissal on this ground was premature; plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to state a claim that a parole stipulation requiring him to attend and complete a substance abuse program with religious content in order to be eligible for early parole violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to show that the personal involvement required for Defendants Crawford and Salsbury to bear section 1983 liability. As to Defendant Burgess, at this stage of the litigation, he has not. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Nixon, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after she was terminated by the law school of Hamline University. Plaintiff alleged that the university, the dean, and the president of the St. Paul Police Federation (SPPF) conspired with the St. Paul Police Department to deny her constitutional right to freedom of speech. The court concluded that plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts that a police officer was acting under color of state law; plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts about the University or the Dean to demonstrate that they participated in a concerted action to terminate plaintiff; concerning leave to amend, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a meeting of the minds between the Department, the SPPF, and the University; and the district court properly ruled that adding the SPPF would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Magee v. Trustees of Hamline University, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the cities, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., federal civil rights laws, and state laws stemming from the cities' demolition of his properties after declaring them nuisances. On remand, the district court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law and that the statute of limitations barred his FHA claims. The court concluded that the district court did not err by ordering the parties to brief the issue of whether plaintiff's complaints stated a claim under federal law; the district court properly considered the relevant evidence and did not err by excluding evidence plaintiff submitted; the district court did not err in concluding that the two-year statute of limitations barred plaintiff's FHA claims; the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's complaint, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1981-83 claims, failed to state a claim under federal law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to alter or amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983. The district court concluded on remand that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on any ground. Determining that the court had jurisdiction in this interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that plaintiffs had not put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant's decisions were motivated by racial animus; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendant made stigmatizing comments about Plaintiff Jones that deprived Jones of his liberty interest to earn a living in his profession as a substance abuse counselor; and, therefore, the court concluded that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on the sections 1981 and 1983 claims. The court reversed the judgment of the district court with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Jones, et al. v. McNeese" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging deliberate indifference by the University to her rape by another student and state law violations including breach of contract, misrepresentation, and negligence following a back injury she received in training for the field hockey team. The district court granted summary judgment to the University. The court concluded that plaintiff had not demonstrated a genuine issue of matter fact as to whether the University acted with deliberate indifference in respect to her rape and its aftermath; although plaintiff's sexual assault was clearly devastating to her, plaintiff had not shown that the University violated Title IX in its response to it or otherwise; plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of material fact on her negligence claim because she had not presented evidence to show the University breached a duty to conform to a standard of care; the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's misrepresentation claims because she provided no evidence that any representations made to her were actually false; plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact on her breach of contract claim; plaintiff has not shown that Judge Autrey abused his discretion by declining to recuse where alumni connections were not a reasonable basis for questioning a judge's impartiality; plaintiff has not shown error or abuse by the district court or violation of her due process rights where she failed to present her positions as required by the court rules for the orderly disposition of issues; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to extend discovery under Rule 56(d). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Roe v. St. Louis University, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, suffering from high-blood pressure, filed suit claiming that he became partially blind after treatment was delayed while in the Faulkner County, Arkansas jail. The court concluded that Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's medical-screening claim where there was no clearly established right to a general medical screening when admitted to a detention center and where he had less obvious signs of a serious medical condition; the County was was entitled to summary judgment on the medical-screening claim; at best, plaintiff's experts showed that Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin should have known that they were committing malpractice - but malpractice was not deliberate indifference; Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on whether medication should have been prescribed after several high blood-pressure readings; Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were entitled to qualified immunity on whether they should have responded sooner to the missing medication at issue; at most, Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin were negligent, but deliberate indifference was more even than gross negligence; and since the County's prescription-delivery system may not be inextricably intertwined with Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin's treatment of plaintiff, the court lacked jurisdiction over the County's appeal. Accordingly, the court reversed judgment as to Dr. Stewart and Nurse Lumpkin on all claims, and as to the County on the medical-screening and delay-in-treatment claims. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the claim against the County for delay in delivery, remanding for further proceedings. View "Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed sex- and pregnancy-based employment discrimination claims against Nationwide under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code 216.6. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of demonstrating constructive discharge, where, even if her supervisor's comment that it was best that plaintiff go home with her babies might support a finding of intent to force plaintiff to resign, plaintiff did not give Nationwide a reasonable opportunity to address and ameliorate the conditions that she claimed constituted constructive discharge. The court also concluded that plaintiff waived her argument that she was actually discharged because she did not raise it in the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Nationwide. View "Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., et al." on Justia Law