Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Jessica Banks sued the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) for removing her four-year-old son R.B. from her custody without parental consent or a court order, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court denied DFPS's motion for summary judgment, finding that its employees were not entitled to qualified immunity as they had violated clearly established law.DFPS appealed the decision, but the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found that the removal of R.B. violated the constitutional rights of both the child and Banks, as there were no exigent circumstances that justified a warrantless removal from his mother. The court emphasized that the mere possibility of danger in the future was not enough to constitute exigent circumstances. The court also held that the law was clearly established that removing a child from their home without consent, a court order, or exigent circumstances was a constitutional violation.However, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for Linda Juarez, an Investigation Supervisor at DFPS. The court ruled that Juarez was not the ultimate decision-maker and was not actively involved in the decision to remove R.B., thereby entitling her to qualified immunity. View "Banks v. Herbrich" on Justia Law

In this case, Jordan Jones, a prisoner at North Carolina’s Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution, sued multiple prison officials under § 1983. The suit challenged the conditions of his confinement and a transfer to another prison that he alleged was retaliatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants.Jones had been placed in a “dry” cell, with the water turned off, for about 17 hours after he was suspected of having ingested contraband. He was allowed to clean himself only with toilet paper, despite having to defecate three times in a portable toilet. He also had to eat a meal with his hands, which he was unable to wash. The court concluded that while the conditions of Jones's confinement were deplorable, the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because it was not clearly established in April 2015 that these conditions posed a substantial risk of serious harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment.However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Gregory Taylor on Jones's claim that his transfer to another prison was in retaliation for his filing of grievances. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Taylor ordered the transfer in retaliation for Jones's grievances, and that Taylor was not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim because it was clearly established at the time of the transfer that such retaliation violated the First Amendment. The court remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "Jones v. Solomon" on Justia Law

In the case brought before the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three, the petitioners, First Amendment Coalition and KQED Inc., sought public access to certain records in the possession of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, relating to peace officers and custodial officers. The records primarily pertained to instances of use of force, discharge of firearms, and sustained findings of dishonesty or sexual assault by an officer, which were considered nonconfidential under section 832.7(b) of the Penal Code.However, the Department withheld certain records citing exemptions under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) due to other state laws prohibiting their disclosure. The petitioners filed a motion for judgment compelling disclosure of these withheld documents but were denied by the trial court.The court, applying rules of statutory construction, concluded that section 832.7(b) of the Penal Code supersedes state law disclosure exemptions that conflict with its decree that records within its scope are not confidential and shall be made available to the public. As such, the court ordered a directive for the respondent court to vacate its judgment to the extent it denies the petitioners’ motion for judgment based on Government Code section 11183, which prohibits the disclosure of subpoenaed records. In all other respects, the petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "First Amendment Coalition v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case involves Brandon Peterson, an inmate at Washington County Jail (WCJ), who filed a lawsuit alleging violations of his constitutional rights by various jail officials. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reviewing the case, had to decide on numerous instances of alleged excessive force, failure to intervene, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, as well as constitutional and state law claims.The court found that on several occasions of alleged excessive force, the officers' actions were justified given Peterson's disruptive and threatening behavior. Consequently, the court granted qualified immunity to the officers involved in these incidents. In the case of the failure to intervene claims, the court decided that without an underlying constitutional violation, there can be no liability for failure to intervene, resulting in the officers being granted qualified immunity for these claims as well.On the issue of deliberate indifference to Peterson's mental health condition, the court found that the prison officials had made efforts to address his condition and had not acted with deliberate disregard for his health. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the officials involved.Regarding Peterson's claim of being subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement, the court remanded the case to the district court for it to address this issue. The court also remanded the case to the district court to decide on the state law and Monell claims. As such, the Appeals Court reversed in part, dismissed in part, and vacated in part the district court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion. View "Peterson v. Heinen" on Justia Law

In the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, the case involved a self-represented prisoner who sued the Department of Corrections (DOC) for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The prisoner alleged that DOC held him in administrative segregation (solitary confinement) for 504 days and that corrections officers denied him any meaningful opportunity to appeal or be heard regarding his segregation. The prisoner contended that the corrections officers’ actions amounted to extreme and outrageous conduct that caused him severe emotional distress. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of DOC, reasoning that DOC’s conduct was not extreme and outrageous and that the prisoner’s distress was not severe enough to give rise to liability.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska concluded that the superior court abused its discretion in dismissing the prisoner's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment in DOC’s favor as to the prisoner’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The Supreme Court also vacated the superior court’s order approving the attorney general’s certification that individual corrections officers acted within the scope of their employment, reversed the court’s denial of the prisoner’s request to compel certain discovery, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the prisoner’s negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. View "Watkinson v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all federal claims made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Lamont Moore, was an inmate who filed a suit against a prison guard and the prison where he was subsequently sent to, alleging failure to protect him from another inmate's attack, violation of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and a conspiracy among the investigating officers to falsify the official report of the incident.The court found that Moore was unable to demonstrate that the prison guard was aware of and disregarded an excessive risk to his safety, a requirement for a successful claim of failure to protect. Moore's testimony indicated that his complaints to the guard about the other inmate were about annoyance and horseplay, not a fear for his safety.Regarding his ADA claim, the court found that Moore failed to demonstrate that any disability-based discrimination was intentional. Moore complained about the distance to the healthcare unit but never alerted anyone at any prison that he required an accommodation in order to access services. He was able to access every service in prison, albeit more slowly due to his loss of vision in one eye. There was no evidence that any defendant knew that he could not access any services or made a deliberate choice to deny him access to services.After resolving all of the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. View "Moore v. Western Illinois Correctional Center" on Justia Law

In this case, the Plaintiff, Paul Steven Wynn, had sued Rex Frederick, in his official capacity as a magistrate, and Great American Insurance Company for negligence. The Plaintiff claimed that Frederick was negligent in sending a custody order to UNC Hospitals, instead of the Sheriff's Office, resulting in a delay in the involuntary commitment of the Plaintiff's nephew, who subsequently assaulted and paralyzed the Plaintiff.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that magistrates, as state officials, are not included in the phrase "other officers" under North Carolina General Statute § 58-76-5, which speaks to the waiving of sovereign immunity for certain officials covered by a statutory bond. The court came to this conclusion by examining the structure and history of the statute, which revealed that the statute only encompasses county officers and not state officers. As such, the court found that the statute does not waive the magistrate's sovereign immunity.Furthermore, the court held that judicial immunity applies to both official and individual capacity claims, contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, which had limited the defense of judicial immunity to individual capacity claims only. The court, however, did not decide whether the magistrate's conduct in this case constituted a judicial act, as it found that the claim was independently barred by sovereign immunity. The decision of the Court of Appeals was therefore reversed. View "Wynn v. Frederick" on Justia Law

In this case, an unincorporated association, Saline Parents, and six individuals sued the Attorney General of the United States, Merrick Garland, alleging that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was unlawfully attempting to silence them and others who opposed progressive curricula and policies in public schools. This lawsuit was in response to a memorandum issued by the Attorney General, expressing concern over the increase in reported incidents of harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. The memorandum instructed the DOJ staff to investigate the issue and discuss strategies to address it. The plaintiffs argued that their protest activities, which included constitutionally protected conduct and did not involve threats of criminal violence, had been unfairly targeted by the DOJ.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case by the District Court on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue this action. The court agreed with the government's argument that the plaintiffs' lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication, indicating that the plaintiffs' claims were based on hypothetical future events that may not occur. The court also found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the government had in any way threatened imminent enforcement action against them or had labeled them in a way that impugned their reputations. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim was based on contingencies and speculation, making the dispute premature for judicial resolution. View "Saline Parents v. Garland" on Justia Law

In this case, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, finding that the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) violated the due process rights of two landowners, Merlin Brown and Uhrich & Brown Limited Partnership, by having the same attorneys act as both prosecutors and participants in the adjudicatory process of the case. The court held that such a combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions in the same individuals posed an intolerably high risk of actual bias, thus, infringing on the landowners' right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. In this case, the NRD had accused the landowners of violating certain ground water management rules. The case was initially heard by the Board of Directors of the NRD, whose decision to impose penalties on the landowners was informed by the same attorneys who had prosecuted the case on behalf of the NRD. The landowners appealed the Board's decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), leading to the district court's reversal. The NRD then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's ruling. View "Uhrich & Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, a civilly committed sexually dangerous person, petitioned the Department of Correction (DOC) for medical parole due to his deteriorating health conditions. The DOC denied his petition based on their policy that civilly committed individuals are ineligible for medical parole under G. L. c. 127, § 119A. The plaintiff sought review of this denial, arguing that his due process rights had been violated. A Superior Court judge allowed his motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the DOC to conduct a hearing on the plaintiff's medical parole petition.However, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed the judge's order. The court held that the medical parole statute applies only to committed offenders serving a criminal sentence, not to civilly committed sexually dangerous persons. It further held that sexually dangerous persons may seek release due to terminal illness or physical or mental incapacity under G. L. c. 123A, § 9, and denying them an additional avenue for relief by means of the medical parole statute does not offend substantive due process. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the DOC's policy that precludes civilly committed sexually dangerous persons from eligibility for medical parole. View "Murphy v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law