Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In plaintiff's Bivens action against an FBI agent and others arising from her extradition to South Korea for the murder of a fellow exchange student which resulted in an acquittal, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims except for her Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution is reversed and remanded as the FBI agent is entitled to qualified immunity where plaintiff has not alleged a violation of her constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution in the United States.   

Read Snider v. Lee, No. 08-1414

Appellate Information

Argued: May 12, 2009

Decided: October 6, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Niemeyer

Counsel

For Appellant:  Catherine Yvonne, United States Department of Justice

For Appellees:  J. Samuel Tenenbaum, Northwestern University School of Law

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant-city's police performed racially discriminatory searches, district court's denial of class certification is affirmed where plaintiff had little interest in or knowledge and understanding of the case, and appeared to be merely lending his name to the suit. Dismissal of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's subjective beliefs were irrelevant in assessing whether a reasonable person would have felt free to terminate his encounter with the police; and 2) the city did not classify plaintiff on the basis of his race.

Read Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, No. 08-1334

Appellate Information

Argued: May 12, 2009

Decided: August 31, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Beam

Counsel

For Appellant:

Neal Lawrence Walters, Scott Kroner, PLC,  Charlottesville, VA

For Appellees:

Alvaro A. Inigo, Zunka, Milnor, Carter & Ingo, Ltd., Charlottesville, VA

In an action against prison administrators under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for forcibly shaving plaintiff's head in violation of his religious beliefs, summary judgment for defendants is reversed in part where they failed to meet their burden to show that their policy of forcible grooming was the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest.

Read Smith v. Ozmint, No. 07-6558

Appellate Information

Argued: May 14, 2009

Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Michael

Counsel

For Appellant:

Cecily Elizabeth Baskir, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Steven H. Goldblatt, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, SC

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that defendant-officer wrongfully seized plaintiff's wolf, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the fact that a wolf may be lawfully possessed does not mean that the lawfulness of its possession must be verified as a prerequisite to its seizure when that seizure is necessary to protect the public safety or otherwise.

Read Walker v. Prince George's Cty., No. 08-1462

Appellate Information

Argued: May 14, 2009

Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Justice O'Connor

Counsel

For Appellants:

Jason Christopher Crump, Smith Graham & Crump, LLC, Largo, MD

For Appellees:

Stephen Thibodeau, Prince George's County Office of Law, Upper Marlboro, MD

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on the suspension of Plaintiff's practice privileges at Defendant hospital, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed, where the hospital was not a state actor because the members of its board were not employees of or controlled by the county.

Read Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem. Hosp., No. 07-1986

Appellate Information

Argued: October 29, 2008

Decided: July 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Copenhaver

Counsel

For Appellant:

Karin Marshall Zaner, Kane, Russell, Coleman & Logan, Dallas, TX

For Appellees:

Charles David Creech, Harris, Creech, Ward & Blackerby, New Bern, NC

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a warrantless entry into Plaintiffs' home, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed where the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment exigent circumstances doctrine, because Defendants believed a missing teenage girl was in the house.

Read Hunsberger v. Wood, No. 08-1782

Appellate Information

Argued May 15, 2009

Decided June 29, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Wilkinson

Counsel

For Appellant:

Elizabeth Kay Dillon, Guynn, Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Salem, VA

For Appellees:

Melvin Edward Williams, Grimes & Williams, PC, Roanoke, VA

Terry N. Grimes, Grimes & Williams, PC, Roanoke, VA

In an action under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) for refusal to accommodate Plaintiff prisoner's kosher food needs, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where RLUIPA does not authorize a claim for money damages against an official sued in their individual capacity.

Read Rendelman v. Rouse, No. 08-6150

Appellate Information

Argued: March 25, 2009

Decided: June 25, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Michael

Counsel

For Appellant:

Timothy McGinn, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC

James E. Coleman, Jr., Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC

Sean E. Andrussier, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC

James Healy, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC

Matthew Levy, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC

Susan Pourciau, Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC

For Appellees:

Phillip M. Pickus, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD

Douglas F. Gansler, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD