Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A Concord police officer discovered her firearm missing from the station’s lockers in 2013. Investigation revealed that another officer, the plaintiff, had mistakenly taken the firearm while transporting a prisoner to a hospital. The plaintiff gave inconsistent accounts about when she realized the mistake, telling supervisors she noticed it at the station, while her partner reported she only realized it at the hospital. An internal affairs investigation found the plaintiff’s statements lacked credibility and concluded she had lied to colleagues and supervisors about the incident. The police chief sustained these findings, terminated her employment, and submitted her name for inclusion on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES), formerly known as the “Laurie List.”The plaintiff appealed her termination to the City of Concord’s Personnel Appeals Board, which upheld the decision, finding her lacked credibility. She then filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging gender discrimination and wrongful termination, which was settled. The settlement required the City to remove documents related to the incident from her personnel file and maintain them in a separate investigative file, and to report her departure as a negotiated resignation.Years later, the plaintiff sued the City and the New Hampshire Department of Justice in Superior Court, seeking removal of her name from the EES under RSA 105:13-d. She argued the alleged misconduct was immaterial, the records were no longer in her personnel file, and her inclusion on the EES was unwarranted given the passage of time. The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the defendants.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed, holding that RSA 105:13-d governs EES inclusion and applies to “personnel information,” not just personnel files. The court found the plaintiff’s untruthfulness constituted potentially exculpatory evidence and that it was reasonably foreseeable her misconduct could be admissible to impeach her credibility if she were called as a witness in a future case. View "Doe v. Concord Police Department" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Clark County, Brian Caperonis was killed by other inmates. His father, William Joseph Caperonis, acting individually and as the special administrator of Brian’s estate, filed a civil complaint against the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and several of its employees. The claims included civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, and various negligence claims related to Brian’s death.NDOC moved to dismiss the state law negligence claims, arguing that the estate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243. NDOC asserted that, as the estate stands in the shoes of the decedent, it was required to file an administrative claim before pursuing litigation. William opposed, contending that the exhaustion requirement applied only to living inmates and not to the estates of deceased prisoners. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied NDOC’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plain language of the statutes and the relevant administrative regulations did not extend the exhaustion requirement to estates of deceased inmates.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed NDOC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the administrative exhaustion requirements in NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 do not apply to the estate of a deceased prisoner. The court reasoned that the statutory language is limited to “a person who is or was” in NDOC custody and does not contemplate survival claims by estates. The court also found that the administrative regulations provide no mechanism for an estate to pursue such remedies. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied NDOC’s writ petition, affirming the district court’s decision. View "Department of Corrections v. District Court" on Justia Law

A resident of University Heights, Ohio, who practices Orthodox Judaism, sought to use his home for group prayer sessions due to religious obligations and restrictions on travel during the Sabbath. After inviting neighbors to participate in these gatherings, a neighbor complained to city officials, prompting the city’s law director to send a cease-and-desist letter, warning that using the home as a place of religious assembly violated local zoning laws. The resident then applied for a special use permit to operate a house of worship but withdrew his application before the city’s Planning Commission could reach a decision, stating he did not wish to operate a house of worship as defined by the ordinance. Despite withdrawing, he later filed a federal lawsuit against the city and several officials, alleging violations of federal and state law, including constitutional and statutory claims.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted summary judgment for the city and its officials. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Ohio Constitution were unripe because there was no final decision by the relevant local authorities regarding the application of the zoning ordinance to his property. The court also rejected his Fourth Amendment and Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) claims on the merits and declined supplemental jurisdiction over a state public records claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that most of the plaintiff’s claims were unripe because he withdrew his application before any final decision was made by the city’s zoning authorities, and thus there was no concrete dispute for federal review. The court also held that his facial challenges to the ordinance were forfeited and, in any event, failed as a matter of law. The court further concluded that the Fourth Amendment and FACE Act claims failed on the merits and found no abuse of discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim. View "Daniel Grand v. City of University Heights, Ohio" on Justia Law

An armed fugitive fleeing law enforcement entered a print shop owned by the plaintiff, forcibly removed him, and barricaded himself inside. After a thirteen-hour standoff, Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers used dozens of tear gas canisters to subdue the fugitive, causing significant damage to the shop and its contents. The parties agreed that the officers’ actions were authorized, reasonable, and lawful. The plaintiff alleged that the damages, which exceeded $60,000, were caused exclusively by the police.The plaintiff initially sought compensation from the United States Marshals Service, which denied the claim and referred him to the City of Los Angeles. After the City did not respond to his claims or his attorney’s letter, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Takings Clause does not require compensation for property destroyed by police acting reasonably in an emergency. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the City’s initial motion but later granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the destruction was a valid exercise of police power and not a compensable taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the government’s destruction of private property, when necessary and reasonable for public safety, is exempt from the Takings Clause. The court relied on historical understanding and longstanding precedent, concluding that such actions fall outside the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. View "PENA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Rocky Freeman was involved in a Brooklyn drug ring and was hired to kill a rival dealer, Freddie Gonzalez, in 1993. He was later arrested and charged in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with drug conspiracy, the Gonzalez murder, and the unrelated murder of Augustin Sosa. At trial, Freeman was convicted of the drug and Gonzalez murder counts but acquitted of the Sosa murder. However, his presentence report (PSR) incorrectly stated that he had committed both murders. Although a judge ordered the error corrected, the PSR was not amended, and the inaccurate report was transmitted to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Freeman subsequently endured heightened security conditions in prison, including solitary confinement and severe restrictions, which he later attributed to the erroneous PSR.Freeman discovered the error in 2015 and pursued administrative remedies, including filing an SF-95 form alleging a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) violation. He then filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the BOP, the U.S. Probation Office (USPO), his unit manager, and probation officers, alleging FTCA and Bivens claims. The District Court dismissed his FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits, and dismissed his Bivens claim for failure to serve the probation officers. Freeman appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the District Court erred in dismissing Freeman’s FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction, finding that he had properly presented his claim to the appropriate agency. The court also held that the District Court improperly applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s physical injury requirement to the FTCA presentment phase. The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of the FTCA claim and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Freeman’s Bivens claim, concluding that his claim was not cognizable under current Supreme Court precedent. View "Freeman v. Lincalis" on Justia Law

Residents and the municipality of Morovis, Puerto Rico, brought suit against the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) and its officials, alleging that for years, Morovis has suffered from a severe water crisis, with many residents lacking water service on most days. The plaintiffs, all PRASA subscribers, claimed that despite repeated notifications and proposed solutions—including a report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—PRASA failed to address the crisis. They alleged that sometimes the outages could be resolved by simply turning on pumps or generators, and that PRASA officials were aware of the situation but did little to provide alternative water sources or adjust billing. The plaintiffs also recounted incidents suggesting deliberate inaction or sabotage by PRASA employees.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the case in its entirety at the pleading stage, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a substantive due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of “shocking the conscience,” and also held that the plaintiffs’ contracts with PRASA could not form the basis of a substantive due process claim. The court did not decide whether Puerto Rico law created a protected property interest in water service.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the substantive due process claim. The First Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged government conduct that could shock the conscience, particularly under a deliberate indifference standard, given the prolonged and severe deprivation of water. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, leaving unresolved whether a protected property interest exists and whether qualified immunity applies. View "Maldonado-Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority" on Justia Law

A woman with a lifelong hearing impairment obtained a commercial driver’s license (CDL) in New Jersey after receiving a federal exemption from the standard hearing requirement. This exemption allowed her to drive commercial vehicles in interstate commerce but specifically prohibited her from operating passenger vehicles or school buses. Despite this, she was mistakenly issued state endorsements permitting her to drive such vehicles and worked as a campus shuttle bus driver for about eight months. When the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) realized the error, it revoked her passenger and school bus endorsements without providing a pre-revocation hearing.Instead of seeking review in New Jersey Superior Court, the woman filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, as well as a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed some claims and ultimately granted summary judgment to the defendants on all remaining claims, finding she was not “qualified” for the endorsements and had no property interest in them.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual with a disability” under the relevant statutes because she could not meet the essential eligibility requirement of passing the hearing test for the endorsements. The court also held that, even assuming a property interest in the endorsements, due process did not require a pre-revocation hearing given the state’s strong safety interests and the availability of post-deprivation remedies. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Parker v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission" on Justia Law

A 70-year-old woman was the subject of a state petition for involuntary civil commitment, alleging she suffered from a severe mental disorder with manic and psychotic features. Over several months, she had multiple encounters with law enforcement and was charged with various offenses, including assault and disorderly conduct. The petition included a psychiatric evaluation and described significant behavioral changes affecting her safety and relationships. At the initial hearing, the woman was represented by counsel, who stated she did not want a trial and wished to be stabilized, and the court read her rights aloud.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, presided over the hearing. The court relied on the representations of counsel and the woman’s brief affirmations to find that she knowingly and intentionally waived her procedural rights, including the right to contest the commitment. The court then ordered her commitment to the Montana State Hospital for up to 90 days, issuing findings that largely repeated the petition’s allegations. The order stated that the woman and her counsel agreed to waive her rights, but the court did not directly question her about the waiver or develop a record of her understanding.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred by failing to make an adequate inquiry or develop a sufficient record to support a finding that the woman knowingly and intentionally waived her rights, as required by Montana law. The Supreme Court emphasized that merely informing a respondent of their rights or relying on general statements from counsel is insufficient. The order of commitment was reversed, reaffirming the necessity for strict compliance with statutory and due process requirements in involuntary commitment proceedings. View "In re P.G.J." on Justia Law

Six women who were formerly incarcerated at the Jasper City Jail in Alabama alleged that they suffered repeated sexual abuse by jailers, primarily by one officer, while serving as inmates. The plaintiffs described a range of sexual assaults and harassment, with one plaintiff also alleging abuse by a second jailer. The jail operated under the authority of the City of Jasper’s police chief, with a chief jailer and other supervisory staff responsible for daily operations. Jail policies expressly prohibited sexual contact between staff and inmates, and there were procedures for reporting grievances, but the plaintiffs claimed these mechanisms were ineffective or inaccessible.After the alleged abuse, the Alabama State Bureau of Investigation began an inquiry, leading to the resignation of the primary alleged abuser and, later, his indictment on state charges. The plaintiffs filed six separate lawsuits, later consolidated, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations against the police chief, chief jailer, and the City, as well as claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). One plaintiff also brought claims against a second jailer. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment to all defendants, finding insufficient evidence that the supervisory officials or the City had knowledge of, or were deliberately indifferent to, the alleged abuse, and that the claims against one jailer failed for lack of proper service.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between the actions or inactions of the supervisory officials or the City and the alleged constitutional violations, as there was no evidence of a widespread custom or policy of tolerating sexual abuse, nor of deliberate indifference or failure to train. The court also found that certain claims were time-barred and that the TVPRA claims failed due to lack of evidence that the City knowingly benefited from or had knowledge of the alleged trafficking. View "Bridges v. Poe" on Justia Law

Two inmates in Virginia, each serving sentences for attempted aggravated murder, were initially informed by the Department of Corrections that they would be released in July 2022 due to a new state law expanding sentence credits for good behavior. This law, H.B. 5148, allowed certain inmates to earn more credits and thus reduce their incarceration time. However, after a change in the Attorney General’s office, the new Attorney General issued an advisory opinion stating that inmates convicted of inchoate offenses related to aggravated murder were not eligible for the enhanced credits. As a result, the Department reversed its earlier decision and kept the inmates incarcerated for an additional year, until the Supreme Court of Virginia later clarified that such inmates were indeed eligible for the credits and ordered their release.The inmates then filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the Attorney General and the Director of Corrections violated their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to their over-incarceration. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding that both officials had acted reasonably in interpreting an unsettled question of state law and that their conduct did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference or conscience-shocking behavior.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that the officials’ actions did not constitute deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, nor did they shock the conscience under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court emphasized that federal courts should not hold state officials personally liable for reasonable legal interpretations of unsettled state law, especially when those interpretations are made in good faith and with conventional legal reasoning. View "Swart v. Miyares" on Justia Law