Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plunderbund Media, LLC sought the disclosure of records documenting threats against the governor that were kept by the Director of Public Safety. Legal counsel for the Department of Public Safety refused to produce any records based on Ohio Rev. Code 149.433, which exempts “security records” from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Plunderbund filed an action for a writ of mandamus to require the Department to produce the requested records. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding any records of threats made to the governor are “security records” and are therefore exempt from disclosure as public records under section 149.433. View "State ex rel. Plunderbund Media v. Born" on Justia Law

Police Chief Beck charged Officer Pedro with misconduct: use of a city police vehicle for personal business on two occasions, making a discourteous statement to a member of the public, and making a misleading statement to a supervisor conducting an official investigation. A Board of Rights found that three counts were time-barred. Beck disagreed; the board found Pedro guilty on all counts and recommended a 22-day suspension without pay. Beck approved the recommendation. The trial court found in favor of Pedro, finding counts one and four barred by the statute of limitations and counts two and three not barred. It concluded that Pedro was not informed that he was being investigated for misconduct prior to his interrogation, as required, and suppressed Pedro’s statements and set aside the guilty finding on count four. Although the court found that counts two and three were not barred by the statute of limitations, it determined that the Board had found that those counts were barred, and that its finding was final and binding because the city failed to challenge the decision. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that the Board failed to proceed as required by law by deferring to Beck’s determination on the statute of limitations rather than making a decision consistent with its own findings, and that its findings do not support its decision. Ignorance of the accused officer’s identity does not postpone the commencement of the one-year limitations period under Government Code section 3304. The discovery rule applies; the trial court properly determined that count four is time-barred. View "Pedro v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

A public employee filed a complaint with the Commission for Human Rights in 2007 alleging employment discrimination and filed another complaint with the superior court in 2012. Upon learning of the 2012 complaint, the executive director dismissed the 2007 complaint, citing AS 18.80.112(b)(4). Alaska Statute 18.80.112(b)(4) gives the executive director of the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights discretion to dismiss a complaint of employment discrimination if the complainant initiates an action in another forum "based on the same facts." Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the executive director had a proper statutory basis for dismissal because the 2012 civil complaint was "based on the same facts" as those alleged in the 2007 complaint.View "Grundberg v. Alaska State Communication for Human Rights" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA), Cal. Civ. Code 54 et seq., against the City because none of the City's public on-street parking is accessible to people with disabilities. The district court denied the City's motion to dismiss, concluding that the broad language of the ADA requires public entities to ensure that all services, including on-street parking, are reasonably accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The district court then granted the City's motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal and the City petitioned for leave to appeal. The text of the ADA, the relevant implementing regulations, and the DOJ's interpretation of its own regulations all lead the court to conclude that public entities must ensure that all normal governmental functions are reasonably accessible to disabled persons, irrespective of whether the DOJ has adopted technical specifications for the particular types of facilities involved. Therefore, the court held that plaintiff has stated a claim under the ADA and the CDPA based on the City's alleged failure to provide accessible on-street diagonal stall parking. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fortyune v. City of Lomita" on Justia Law

Appellant was stopped by police officers while driving in a 2003 Chevy Tahoe on suspicion that he did not have a valid driver’s license. Appellant was subsequently issued a traffic citation. The officers proceeded to conduct an inventory search of the Tahoe and found 225 grams of methamphetamine. The officers then searched Appellant and found $611 in cash. Appellant was charged with first-degree possession of a controlled substance. The vehicle and cash were seized, and Appellant was served with notice and intent to forfeit the seized property. Appellant filed a civil complaint demanding a judicial determination of forfeiture, arguing that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture actions and that the evidence supporting forfeiture was illegally obtained and must be suppressed. The district court granted summary judgment for the County. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to civil forfeiture actions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the exclusionary rule is applicable to civil forfeiture actions brought under Minn. Stat. 609.531-.5319; and (2) Appellant had standing to challenge the forfeiture of the vehicle and cash. Remanded. View "Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, owner of a bar and nightclub, filed suit challenging the noise ordinance of Ocean Springs, arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The court focused on the language of the ordinance that prohibits noise that "annoys... a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities." The court concluded that this language imposed an admittedly objective standard of conduct in its enforcement. Therefore, the court held that the ordinance sets an explicitly objective standard in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, and therefore it is not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Munn v. City of Ocean Springs, MS" on Justia Law

This case concerns compliance reports regarding improving conditions in two correctional facilities under a settlement agreement between the United States and Erie County. The NYCLU sought to intervene in order to have the reports unsealed. The court held that the public's fundamental right of access to judicial documents, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was wrongly denied when the compliance reports in this case were sealed. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and ordered that the judicial documents be unsealed. View "United States v. Erie County" on Justia Law

This case was an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of qualified immunity in an Eighth Amendment case brought by a Colorado state prisoner. Plaintiff Homaidan Al-Turki filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against several prison officials, including Defendant Mary Robinson (a prison nurse) based on these officials’ failure to provide him with any type of medical evaluation or treatment while he was suffering through several hours of severe abdominal pain from what turned out to be kidney stones. The district court granted qualified immunity to the other prison officials, none of whom were medical professionals, but denied Defendant Robinson’s summary judgment motion for qualified immunity. Defendant then filed this interlocutory appeal. On appeal, the issues this case presented to the Tenth Circuit were: (1) whether the hours of severe pain Plaintiff experienced constituted a sufficiently serious medical need to satisfy the objective prong of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference test; and (2) whether Defendant’s alleged actions violated clearly established law. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court on both issues. View "Al-Turki v. Robinson, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was blind, requested transportation subsidies from a Maine state agency. The agency refused the request. After an unsuccessful appeal to an administrative hearing officer, Plaintiff brought suit in the federal district court. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal but suggested that Plaintiff reframe his action as one for judicial review under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff subsequently sought leave to amend his complaint to assert a claim for judicial review. The agency objected, arguing that Plaintiff’s proposed claim was barred by Maine’s general thirty-day statute of limitations for judicial review of administrative decisions. The district court allowed Plaintiff to file his proposed amended complaint and concluded that the hearing officer should have granted Plaintiff relief. The agency appealed, arguing that Plaintiff’s action for judicial review was time-barred. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s judicial review action under 29 U.S.C. 722(c)(5)(J) arises out of a post-1990 congressional enactment within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 1658, which enactment does not explicitly incorporate any specific limitations period; and (2) accordingly, the right to judicial review that the statute creates is subject to the general catch-all limitations period contained in section 1658(a). View "Millay v. State of Maine Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Keith Thompson was killed when a county sheriff ended a two-hour high-speed chase by firing an assault rifle into the vehicle Keith had stolen. Plaintiffs, Keith's parents, filed suit against the sheriff and the County under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the sheriff used excessive force. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that there was no constitutional violation in the sheriff's use of deadly force and he was entitled to qualified immunity. Because there was no Fourth Amendment violation of the seizure of Keith, plaintiffs' section 1983 claims failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Thompson, et al. v. Mercer, et al." on Justia Law