Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

In a section 1983 suit brought against a county Board of Education  (Board) by the parents of children who were dismissed from a high school football team for challenging their coach's leadership, a jury verdict in favor of defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Board's policy amounts to a content-neutral time, place and manner regulation; 2) the board's policy is not unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied; 3) plaintiffs' challenges to several of trial court's jury instructions are rejected; but 4) district court's decision to grant $87,216.49 in attorney's fees and expenses to defendants is reversed as plaintiffs' action were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.     

Read Lowery v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., No. 07-6324

Appellate Information

Argued: August 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Sutton

Counsel

For Appellant:  G. Mark Mamantov, Bass Berry & Sims, PLC., Knoxville, Tennessee

For Appellee:  Michael S. Kelley, Kennerly Montgomery & Finley, PC., Knoxville, Tennessee

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against two police officers on behalf of the estate of her husband arising from a high speed chase of armed robbery suspects that killed her husband in an automobile crash, summary judgment in favor of the defendant police officers is affirmed where: 1) the estate did not establish a prima facie case of deprivation of the husband's substantive due process rights as officers' actions of trying to apprehend what they reasonably believed to be dangerous criminals do not shock the conscience; and 2) in the alternative, even if the officers' actions did rise to the level of violating the husband's constitutional rights, it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that actions of that sort crossed the constitutional line. 

Read Jones v. Byrnes, No. 08-1889

Appellate Information

Argued: October 9, 2009

Decided and Filed: November 9, 2009

Judges

Per Curium Opinion

Counsel

For Appellant:  Joel B. Sklar, Law Office, Detroit, Michigan.

For Appellee:  Joseph Nimako, Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho, PLC., Livonia, Michigan

In plaintiff-administratrix's case against the officers for the deadly shooting of a fifteen year-old in his bedroom while executing a search warrant of his home, district court's denial of officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is reversed and remanded as the record supports the conclusion that the material facts are not genuinely disputed and, as a matter of law, officers' split-second decision to use deadly force in self-defense was not shown to have been objectively unreasonable. 

Read Chappell v. City of Cleveland, No. 08-4456

Appellate Information

Argued: October 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: November 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge McKeague

Counsel

For Appellant:  Stephen W. Funk, Roetzel & Andress, Akron, Ohio

For Appellee:  Terry H. Gilbert, Friedman & Gilbert, Cleveland, Ohio

District court's finding that plaintiffs' new claims in their amended complaint were time-barred under the applicable Kentucky statute of limitations and dismissal of federal claims is reversed as: 1) the claims asserted in the amended complaint were based on the same conduct, transaction or occurrence as the claims in the original complaint that defendants impermissibly reduced and suspended assignment of wrecker calls to plaintiffs' towing service; and 2) as such, the claims in the amended complaint relate back to the claims in the original complaint and were filed within the statute of limitations. 

Read Hall v. Spencer County, No. 08-6455

Argued: October 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:  David A. Friedman, Fernandez Friedman Haynes & Kohn PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky

For Appellee:  David A. Cohen, McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action against an officer who arrested her for domestic disturbance, district court's partial denial of defendant-officer's motion for summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding each element of the handcuffing test, including the injury requirement; and 2) a reasonable juror could find that no threat to the officer existed, and in the absence of a threat to officer safety, defendant cannot argue that he acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment when he pushed plaintiff's face into the ground while she was incapacitated because use of force after a suspect has been incapacitated or neutralized is excessive as a matter of law. 

Read Morrison v. Bd. of Tr. of Green Township, No. 08-3051

Argued: June 19, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Keith

Counsel

For Appellant:  Andrew E. Rudloff, Subashi, Wildermuth & Dinkler, Dayton, Ohio

For Appellee:  Norman J. Frankowski II, Flagel & Papakirk, Cincinnati, Ohio

In plaintiff's lawsuit against the city of Knoxville alleging that the city's procedures for citing and levying fines for red-light runners captured on cameras installed at intersections violates the state and federal constitution, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims is affirmed as the city's agreement to give her a hearing renders her challenges to the hearing's procedures unripe. 

Read Williams v. Redflex Traffic Sys., Inc., No. 08-5545

Argued: June 10, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Martin

Counsel

For Appellant:  Gerald L. Gulley, Jr., Gulley Oldham, PLLC, Knoxville, Tennessee

For Appellee:  Michael S. Kelley, Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley, PC Knoxville, Tennessee, Ronald Eugene Mills, City of Knoxville Law Department, Knoxville, Tennessee, Charles W. Swanson, Sheppeard, Swanson & Mynatt, PLC, Knoxville, Tennessee.

In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit alleging various constitutional violations of his rights while being booked at the city jail, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) facts are sufficient to establish a violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights with respect to his excessive force claims; 2) plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; 3) plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants used excessive force and delayed medical treatment because of plaintiff's race in violation of his equal protection rights; and 4) a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant acted with a malicious purpose or in a wanton or reckless manner with respect to plaintiff's assault and battery claim. 

Read Harris v. City of Circleville, No. 08-3252

Argued: March 13, 2009

Decided and Filed: October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by District Judge Cox

Counsel

For Appellant:  John T. McLandrich, Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., LPA, Cleveland, Ohio

For Appellee:  Charles H. Cooper, Jr., Cooper & Elliott LLC, Columbus, Ohio

In plaintiff's gender discrimination action under Title VII against the police department, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded as plaintiff, a patrol officer and a seventeen-year veteran with the department, had arguably superior qualification than the two successful applicants who received the promotions as detectives and produced other probative evidence of gender discrimination.  

Read Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep't, No. 08-1883

Appellate Information

Argued: August 4, 2009

Decided and Filed: September 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Moore

Counsel

For Appellant:  Richard I. Lippitt, Law Office of Richard I. Lippitt, PC of Milford, Michigan

For Appellee:  Karen M. Daley, Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC, of Livonia, Michigan

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 challenge to Ohio's lethal injection method of execution, the dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the continuing-violations doctrine did not toll the statute of limitations; 2) the statute of limitations set forth in Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007) (Cooey II), did not constitute a "new rule of law" that could not be applied retroactively; and 3) Cooey II did not fully adopt the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's statute-of-limitations provisions.

Read Broom v. Strickland, No. 08-4200

Appellate Information

Filed September 1, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Moore

Counsel

For Appellant:

Timothy F. Sweeney, Law Office of Timothy Farrell Sweeney, Cleveland, OH

For Appellees:

Charles L. Wille, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH

In an action under the First Amendment and various employment statutes challenging defendant-Baptist Homes for Children's policy of firing and not hiring gay and lesbian employees, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the termination of plaintiff based on her sexual orientation did not constitute discrimination on account of religion. However, the ruling is reversed in part where plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated standing as state taxpayers for their Establishment Clause challenge.

Read Pedreira v. Ky. Baptist Homes for Children, No. 08-5538

Appellate Information

Argued: March 11, 2009

Decided and Filed: August 31, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gibbons

Counsel

For Appellants:

Alexander Joseph Luchenitser, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Jonathan David Goldberg, Goldberg Simpson, LLC, Louisville, KY

John O. Sheller, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Louisville, KY