Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights by defendants. Plaintiff also sought certification of a class action suit against the United States Attorney General on behalf of African-Americans in Arkansas subjected to equal protection and due process violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the AG Defendants violated his due process rights when they accessed his sealed trial records. The district court concluded, however, that none of the actions taken by the AG Defendants amount to a brutal abuse of power. In this case, the AG Defendants acted reasonably, particularly in light of Arkansas caselaw allowing the use of expunged records to impeach testimony when the actual innocence of the witness has not been shown. Because the AG Defendants' conduct failed to shock the conscience, no substantive due process violation occurred. Furthermore, because plaintiff had no state-created liberty interest created by the Arkansas expungement statute for the AG Defendants to violate, the AG Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the procedural due process claim. The court rejected plaintiff's defamation claim against Attorney General McDaniel because he is entitled to absolute legislative immunity. Finally, plaintiff's Brady v. Maryland claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983, are time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Buckley v. Ray" on Justia Law

After the Iowa State University (ISU) student chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML ISU) had several of its trademark licensing requests denied because its designs included a cannabis leaf, two members of the student group filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, alleging various violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment in part and entered a permanent injunction against defendants. The court concluded that plaintiffs suffered an injury in fact in their individual capacities, and that they therefore have standing to bring this action. The court reasoned that plaintiffs' allegations that ISU violated their First Amendment rights by rejecting their designs and therefore preventing their ability to spread NORML ISU's message are sufficient to establish an injury in fact. The court also concluded that qualified immunity is not an issue here because this appeal solely concerns plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief; the district court did not err by concluding that defendants violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights because defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and did not argue that their administration of the trademark licensing program was narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling governmental interest; and NORML ISU's use of the cannabis leaf does not violate ISU's trademark policies because the organization advocates for reform to marijuana laws, not the illegal use of marijuana. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gerlich v. Leath" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging, inter alia, excessive force after a police officer, Robert Hinman, shot him. The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Hinman, Chief Stuart Thomas, and the City of Little Rock. The court noted the tragic nature of the events where plaintiff was trying to defuse a situation where his former schoolmate had pulled out a gun and pointed it at a crowd. Plaintiff was in possession of the gun because he had taken it away from his schoolmate. Plaintiff was shot several times and is now paralyzed from the neck down. The court held that Officer Hinman's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and the district court did not err in granting his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. In this case, the officer instructed plaintiff to stop but plaintiff did not hear him, plaintiff continued to run toward another officer with the gun in plaintiff's hand, and plaintiff was two to three feet from the other officer before Officer Hinman fired his gun. Because the court concluded that Officer Hinman did not violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, the court rejected plaintiff's claims against Chief Thomas and the City. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Malone v. Hinman" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Civic Center and the City after his lease for a concession stand was terminated and his property was seized. Plaintiff alleged municipal liability based on the decision of the policymaker. The court explained that the district court must identify the final policymaker in accordance with South Dakota state law and local Rapid City ordinances. Because the district court failed to do so in this case, the jury rendered a verdict against defendants that lacked a legally sufficient basis. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's ruling on the Civic Center's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, vacated the jury's verdict, and remanded for a new trial. View "Soltesz v. Rushmore Plaza Civic Center" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Department of Corrections and related parties after he injured himself while using industrial equipment in the workshop of a Minnesota correctional facility. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims for violations of his civil rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and for negligence of prison employees. At issue are plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against the individual defendants based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that, even assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff's assignment to operate the beam saw with no safety guards and no formal training presents an objective risk of serious harm, plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to show that officials were deliberately indifferent to that risk. In this case, the allegations fail to create the inference that officials had actual knowledge of those safety risks at the time in question. The court further explained that the absence of safety equipment or procedures and an awareness of similar injuries fail to show the officials were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm posed to plaintiff by the beam saw. Therefore, the officials are entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that he is entitled to discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kulkay v. Roy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against Regents and the University, seeking damages and injunctive relief after he was discharged based on sexual harassment allegations. The court concluded that because plaintiff did not sufficiently plead a pre-termination procedural due process violation, exhaustion of state remedies is required to proceed on his post-termination claim; plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that proceeding with the Office of Conflict Resolution (OCR) hearing would have been futile; and thus plaintiff's section 1983 procedural due process claims were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Raymond v. Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Chipotle, alleging claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. State. 363A et seq., for reprisal, age discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination. On appeal, plaintiff challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment on his reprisal claim. Chipotle claims that he was discharged due to declining work effort and performance. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Chipotle’s stated reason for terminating his employment was pretextual. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that his reprisal claim under the MHRA fails as a matter of law and the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sieden v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants for unlawful arrest and excessive force. The district court denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for Defendants Hansen, Dirkes, and Rybak. In this case, plaintiff was arrested for obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest. The court concluded that Officer Hansen had arguable probable cause to arrest plaintiff for obstructing a police officer. When plaintiff initially approached Hansen to ask about his son's arrest, Hansen ordered plaintiff to step back, but plaintiff disobeyed Hansen's unequivocal instructions to leave. Plaintiff lingered and refused to comply with Hansen's instructions. The court also concluded that Officer Dirkes is entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's unlawful arrest claim and excessive force claims where Dirkes did not violate a constitutional right by executing the takedown and by using the taser. Finally, the court concluded that the law was not clearly established that the use of an arm bar in this context constitutes excessive force, and thus Rybak is entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision denying Officer Hansen, Officer Dirkes, and Trooper Rybak qualified immunity and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ehlers v. Dirkes" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging Mo. Rev. Stat. 311.070.4(10) and its regulations, which detail the information alcohol manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers can include in their advertisements. Plaintiffs alleged a violation of their freedom of speech under the First Amendment because the challenged provisions prohibit truthful, non-misleading commercial speech and restrict the free flow of truthful information to potential customers. Plaintiffs also claim that the provisions are inconsistently enforced. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court reversed, concluding that the amended complaint included sufficient allegations that the challenged provisions did not directly advance the substantial interest of promoting responsible drinking and the amended complaint included more than sufficient information to plead the challenged restrictions are more extensive than necessary. The court found it clear that there are reasonable alternatives to the challenged restrictions Missouri could have enacted that are less intrusive to plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Finally, plaintiffs have pled that the provisions unconstitutionally compel speech and association. View "Missouri Broadcasters Association v. Lacy" on Justia Law

Semmie John Guenther, Jr., filed an administrative charge with the EEOC, alleging that his former employer, Griffin Construction, discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. When Guenther passed away while his charge was pending, the special administrator of his estate filed suit on his behalf when he received the EEOC right-to-sue letter. The district court dismissed the action based on Ark. Code Ann. 16-62-101(a)(1) and found the claim had abated. The court held that federal common law does not incorporate state law to determine whether an ADA claim for compensatory damages survives or abates upon the death of the aggrieved party. The court joined its sister circuits that have allowed the individual’s estate to bring and maintain a suit for compensatory damages under the ADA in place of the aggrieved party. Therefore, Guenther’s ADA claim for compensatory damages survived his death and Griffin Construction is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Guenther v. Griffin Construction Co." on Justia Law