Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In an action against prosecutors and prison officials for violating plaintiff's constitutional rights by having him transferred from federal to state custody at the end of his federal sentence, judgment on the pleadings for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) some of the alleged conduct by defendants was directly related to and intimately associated with the state trial court's sentence and their role as advocates regarding the court's sentence; and 2) the determination of absolute prosecutorial immunity depended on the nature of the function performed, not whether the prosecutor performed that function incorrectly or even with dishonesty.  However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) defendants were not absolutely immune for their alleged statements to the press; and 2) certain defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their roles as state corrections officials.

Read Hart v. Hodges, No. 09-12257

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

In an action by an advertising display company claiming that defendants conspired to ensure that a competing bidder on a municipal project would be awarded the contract, even though acceptance of plaintiff's bid would have been in the best interest of the city, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where the Supreme Court's broad statement that the unequal application of facially neutral law with the intent to discriminate may violate the Equal Protection Clause, in and of itself, did not offer defendants fair warning that their treatment of plaintiff was unconstitutional.

Read Corey Airport Servs., Inc. v. DeCosta, No. 08-15845

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that a university denied plaintiff fraternity official recognition because of its refusal to adhere to the university's nondiscrimination policy in violation of the First Amendment, plaintiff's appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is dismissed as moot where the university amended its nondiscrimination policy to allow plaintiff to register as a student organization.

Read Beta Upsilon Chi Upsilon Chapter v. Machen, No. 08-13332

Appellate Information

Filed October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tjoflat

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by police, denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds to defendants is affirmed where the alleged repeated tasering of plaintiff's decedent into and beyond his complete physical capitulation was grossly disproportionate to any threat posed and was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Read Oliver v. Fiorino, No. 08-15081

Appellate Information

Filed October 26, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Marcus

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to plaintiff's decedent's medical needs while he was in jail, denial of defendants' motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff adequately alleged that defendants were aware of the decedent's condition because of his symptoms and behavior at the jail; and 2) case law at the relevant time should have put supervisor defendants on notice that policies or customs of delayed investigation into and treatment of alcohol withdrawal would be unlawful.  However, the district court's order is reversed in part where plaintiff's allegations did not support the jail supervisor defendants' personal participation in the denial of the decedent's Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Read Harper v. Lawrence County, No. 09-10226

Appellate Information

Filed October 7, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Fay

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on defendant's alleged refusal to release plaintiff on bail after the court approved a property bond, summary judgment for defendant-sheriff is reversed where: 1) there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendant personally participated in the alleged due process violation; and 2) the district court failed to determine whether minimizing the enforcement costs of a property bond constituted a compelling interest for purposes of the Eighth Amendment Excessive Bail Clause.

Read Campbell v. Johnson, No. 08-11667

Appellate Information

Filed September 30, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

In an action claiming that defendant-officer violated plaintiff's son's Fourth Amendment rights when he entered her home without first knocking and announcing the SWAT team's presence, a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where a reasonable officer could have had reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing his presence would have been dangerous under the circumstances facing the SWAT team.

Read Whittier v. Kobayashi, No. 08-12998

Appellate Information

Filed on August 31, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1981 action challenging a county's alleged plan to replace white county managers with African-Americans, denial of qualified immunity to defendants is affirmed where a reasonable official would have known that discriminating against county managers on account of their race was unlawful. However, a denial of legislative immunity to one defendant is reversed where the preparation of a budget proposal related to his legislative duties.

Read Bryant v. Jones, No. 06-16591

Appellate Information

Filed July 31, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tjoflat

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking to enjoin Alabama's lethal injection method of capital punishment, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff unreasonably delayed in filing the action because he knew, or should have known, when the suit was filed that an execution date would likely be set and come before the case could be litigated fully, unless a stay of execution was granted or the litigation was expedited.

Read Hallford v. Allen, No. 07-15478

Appellate Information

Filed July 30, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

In a Bivens action involving claims that then-pregnant plaintiff was detained and searched at an airport based on a suspicion that she was smuggling drugs internally, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) pursuant to the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect its territorial integrity, preliminary searches and seizures are per se reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border; 2) defendants acted reasonably in detaining plaintiff and taking her to a hospital for further, more intrusive, examinations; and 3) state law tort claims were barred under the Supremacy Clause.

Read Denson v. US, No. 05-15572

Appellate Information

Filed July 15, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tjoflat