Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In appeals from an attorney's fees award in Muslim inmates' civil rights suit arising from defendants' refusal to provide them Halal meat, the fees award is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs were prevailing parties, as they achieved a material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties, and the so-ordered settlement bore judicial imprimatur; and 2) the Prison Litigation Reform Act's fee cap applied even though some plaintiffs were released from prison after the filing of the suit but before the successful resolution of the litigation.

Read Perez v. Westchester Cty. Dep't of Corr., No. 08-4245

Appellate Information

Argued: July 10, 2009

Decided: November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Calabresi

Counsel

For Appellants:

Mary Lynn Nicolas and Martin G. Gleeson, Office of the Westchester County Attorney, White Plains, NY

For Appellees:

Richard Cohen, Donia F. Sawwan, Samantha H. Evans, Kathleen M. Aiello, Matthew Bettinger,  Fox Rothschild LLP, New York, NY

In a First Amendment challenge to a New York City regulation banning new parades on Fifth Avenue, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where 1) the rule did not seek to regulate messages or distinguish between different types of speech; and 2) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the provision of the rule establishing punishment for violations because the "chill" on those that might spontaneously join plaintiff's marches was purely conjectural.

Read International Action Ctr. v. New York, No. 07-5739

Appellate Information

Argued: March 6, 2009

Decided: November 17, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Chin

Counsel

For Appellant:

Jeffrey E. Fogel, Gideon Orion Oliver and Palyn Hung, Charlottesville, VA

For Appellee:

Scott Shorr, Ronald E. Sternberg, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY

In a civil rights action alleging that the exculpatory result of post-trial DNA testing was not timely disclosed to plaintiff, denial of defendant-prosecutors' motion for summary judgment based on absolute or qualified immunity is reversed where, because the testing was undertaken in connection with post-trial proceedings and was therefore integral to the advocacy function, the prosecutors enjoyed absolute immunity under Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).

Read Warney v. Monroe Cty., No. 08-0947

Appellate Information

Argued: June 1, 2009

Decided: November 13, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jacobs

Counsel

For Appellants:

Michael E. Davis, Second Deputy County Attorney, Rochester, NY

For Appellee:

Deborah L. Cornwall, Peter J. Neufeld and Sarah Crowley, Cochran Neufeld & Scheck, LLP, New York, NY

In an action under the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Fifth Amendment based on plaintiff's detention at a U.S. airport and subsequent removal to and alleged torture in Syria, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where 1) plaintiff insufficiently pleaded that the alleged conduct of defendant U.S. officials was done under color of Syrian law; and 2) in the context of extraordinary rendition, allowing a Bivens action against policymaking federal officials would have the natural tendency to affect diplomacy, foreign policy, and the security of the nation. 

Read Arar v. Ashcroft, No. 06-4216

Appellate Information

In Banc Rehearing: December 9, 2008

Decided: November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Jacobs

Dissents by Judge Calabresi, Judge Pooler, Judge Sack and Judge Parker

Counsel

For Appellant:

David Cole, Maria Couri LaHood, Jules Lobel, Katherine Gallagher, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY

For Appellees:

Jonathan F. Cohn, Larry Lee Gregg, R. Joseph Sher, Dennis C. Barghaan, Assistant United States Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that the state unlawfully established an involuntary conservatorship over plaintiff, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the judge responsible for the conservatorship did not act in the clear absence of subject matter jurisdiction, and he was not aware of the defects in personal jurisdiction, making judicial immunity appropriate.  However, as to the issue of quasi-judicial immunity under Connecticut law, the court certified the following question to the Connecticut Supreme Court:  What is the role of conservators, court-appointed attorneys for conservatees, and nursing homes in the Connecticut probate court system, in light of the six factors for determining quasi-judicial immunity outlined in Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 201-02 (1985)?

Read Gross v. Rell, No. 08-2626

Appellate Information

Argued: May 20, 2009

Question Certified: October 27, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Straub

Counsel

For Appellant:

Sall R. Zanger, Connecticut Legal Rights Project, Inc., Middletown, CT

For Appellees:

Gregory T. D'Auria, Jane R. Rosenberg, Clare Kindall, Associate Attorneys General, Hartford, CT

In an action claiming that defendants violated the U.S. Constitution and New York law when they successfully petitioned the family court of New York for an order temporarily removing plaintiff's child from her custody, dismissal of the action is vacated in part where: 1) the family court issued a superseding order returning plaintiff's child to her custody, and the family court proceedings were eventually dismissed, so plaintiff was not a "state-court loser" under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) in addition, her claims did not "invite district court review and rejection" of a state court judgment.  However, the dismissal is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to allege that the family court proceeding was terminated in her favor and thus did not state a malicious prosecution claim.

Read Green v. Mattingly, No. 08-4636

Appellate Information

Argued: October 7, 2009

Decided: October 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Cabranes

Counsel

For Appellant:

Carolyn A. Kubitschek, Lansner & Kubitschek, New York, NY

For Appellees:

Tahirih M. Sadrieh, Edward F.X. Hart and Elizabeth A. Wells, New York, NY

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by police, judgment for defendant-officer is affirmed where, because the jury unanimously found that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity and there was no flaw in the finding that required the district court to reject it, the district court acted within its discretion in entering judgment for defendant and denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Read Aczel v. Labonia, No. 08-2741

Appellate Information

Argued: May 27, 2009

Decided: October 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Leval

Counsel

For Appellant:

Keith P. Sturges, Goldstein and Peck, P.C., Bridgeport, CT

For Appellees:

Thomas R. Gerarde, Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Hartford, CT

In an action alleging that defendant hospital failed to provide interpreting services to a patient and his wife (both deaf), so that their two children (of normal hearing) had to act as interpreters for their parents, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the hospital acted with deliberate indifference; 2) the children had associational standing under the Rehabilitation Act; and 3) the children's claims under the New York City Human Rights Law were required to be remanded for reconsideration in light of New York City's Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005.

Read Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., No. 07-1404

Appellate Information

Argued: March 19, 2009

Decided: October 6, 2009

Judges

Opinion as to Parts I, III and IV by Judge Jacobs

Opinion as to Part II by Judge Wesley

Dissent as to Part II by Judge Jacobs

Counsel

For Appellants:

Alan J. Rich, Brooklyn, NY

For Appellee:

Roy W. Breitenbach, Garfunkel, Wild & Travis, P.C., Great Neck, NY

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution, dismissal of the action is reversed where it was unclear that the criminal charge against plaintiff that the state dropped was necessarily related to or arose from the same circumstances as the criminal offense to which plaintiff pleaded guilty, and thus it was unclear under Connecticut law whether the dismissal of the underlying criminal offense resulted in a "favorable termination."

Read Roberts v. Babkiewicz, No. 08-3858

Appellate Information

Argued: July 7, 2009

Decided: September 30, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Appellant:

John R. Williams, John R. Williams and Associates LLC, New Haven, CT

For Appellee:

Scott M. Karsten, Karsten, Dorman & Tallberg, LLC, West Hartford, CT

In an action by prisoners claiming that defendant prison personnel infringed their right to practice their religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the restrictions imposed on plaintiffs' practice were justified by powerful security and administrative interests, but reversed in part where defendants did not demonstrate that the religious/meatless alternative menu was the least restrictive means of furthering their compelling administrative interests.

Read Jova v. Smith, No. 08-2816

Appellate Information