Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Randy Erickson, an inmate at Gogebic County Jail, Michigan, was involved in an incident with Deputy Sheriff Scott Voit. Erickson, who was serving a sentence for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, had an altercation with Voit after making a disrespectful comment. Voit responded by canceling Erickson's family visit, which led Erickson to act out by hitting and kicking the cell door. Voit then handcuffed Erickson and took him to a holding cell, where he threw Erickson to the ground and kneed him in the back. Erickson later sought medical attention for injuries including a fractured rib and back contusions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied Voit's motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Voit used excessive force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. However, the court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that Voit deliberately disregarded Erickson's medical needs, as there was no indication that Voit knew of Erickson's injuries.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that a reasonable jury could find that Voit used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as the force used was disproportionate to the threat posed by Erickson, who was handcuffed and compliant. The court held that Voit was not entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim because the law clearly established that malicious and sadistic use of force violated the Eighth Amendment.However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the district court regarding the claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs. The court found no evidence that Voit knew of Erickson's injuries or that Erickson requested medical care from Voit. Therefore, the court held that Voit did not act with deliberate indifference to Erickson's medical needs.The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Erickson v. Gogebic County" on Justia Law

Tyler Venema, an inmate with a history of mental illness and suicide attempts, committed suicide by asphyxiation with a plastic bag while in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at Woodland Center Correctional Facility (WCC). Venema's estate filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jodi DeAngelo, the warden of WCC, alleging that her failure to train and supervise corrections officers led to Venema's death, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The estate claimed that DeAngelo knew about the risk posed by plastic bags and the officers' failure to remove them from at-risk inmates' cells.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied DeAngelo's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity, finding that the estate's allegations were sufficient to establish that DeAngelo implicitly authorized or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of her subordinates. DeAngelo appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the estate plausibly alleged that DeAngelo knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of her subordinates by failing to train and supervise them properly. The court also found a causal connection between DeAngelo's actions and Venema's death, as her failure to enforce policies against providing plastic bags to at-risk inmates could reasonably be expected to result in harm. The court concluded that Venema's Eighth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the violation, and thus, DeAngelo was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Venema v. West" on Justia Law

Marina Debity brought claims against the Monroe County Board of Education for sex discrimination and retaliation under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Debity alleged that the Board offered her a lower salary than it had paid a male predecessor, Matthew Ancel, for the same job and retaliated by withdrawing her job offer when she requested equal pay.A jury found that the Board offered Debity less money for legitimate reasons unrelated to her sex and did not retaliate against her. Despite these findings, the jury awarded Debity over $195,000 in damages, likely due to poor instructions on the verdict form. The magistrate judge noticed the inconsistency but dismissed the jury without allowing objections. The magistrate judge later denied Debity's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, classifying the verdicts as special verdicts and reconciling the inconsistency by entering judgment based on the jury's answers to the interrogatories.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the magistrate judge presented the jury with a general verdict on the retaliation claims and a general verdict with interrogatories on the discrimination claims. The jury's answers to the interrogatories on the discrimination claims were consistent with each other but inconsistent with the general verdict. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision to enter judgment based on the interrogatories.Regarding the Board's affirmative defense to the discrimination claims, the court held that budget constraints and market forces of supply and demand each provided an independent basis to uphold the jury's verdict. Both reasons were legitimate business explanations for offering Debity a lower salary than Ancel. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the Board on all claims. View "Debity v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ." on Justia Law

Fathiree Ali, a Muslim inmate, requested the Michigan Department of Corrections to provide him with a halal diet, which is required by his religion. The prison chaplain directed him to apply for the vegan meal option, but another official rejected his application after discovering that Ali had purchased over one hundred non-halal items from the prison commissary. Ali then sued the chaplain, the special activities coordinator, the warden, and the Michigan Department of Corrections under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Free Exercise Clause, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed Ali’s claims against the Department of Corrections and granted summary judgment in favor of the officials. Ali appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed Ali’s appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the rest of the district court’s decision. The court held that RLUIPA does not authorize money-damages claims against officials sued in their official or individual capacities. The court also found that Ali’s claims for injunctive relief against the chaplain and warden were moot because they no longer had the power to adjust his meal plan after his transfer to a different prison. Additionally, the court held that Ali’s claim for injunctive relief against the special activities coordinator was moot because the coordinator no longer worked for the Department of Corrections.The court concluded that Ali did not have a cognizable claim for injunctive or declaratory relief under RLUIPA because he had alternatives to access halal meat and could reapply for the vegan meal plan. The court also found that Ali failed to state a claim against the Michigan Department of Corrections as he did not identify a policy that violated RLUIPA. Finally, the court held that the officials were entitled to qualified immunity on Ali’s Free Exercise Clause claims under § 1983. View "Ali v. Adamson" on Justia Law

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Kentucky issued orders prohibiting mass gatherings, including religious services, and closing non-life-sustaining organizations, which included religious organizations. Maryville Baptist Church held an Easter service in defiance of these orders, leading to a lawsuit against the Governor, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky initially declined to issue a preliminary injunction. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a partial stay, allowing outdoor worship. Subsequently, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, permitting both indoor and outdoor worship. The Governor later allowed places of worship to reopen, and the Kentucky General Assembly limited the Governor's authority to issue similar orders in the future. The underlying action was dismissed as moot, and the Church sought attorney’s fees, which the district court denied, ruling that the Church did not prevail.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, which held that a party who receives a preliminary injunction but whose case becomes moot before a final judgment does not qualify as a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Applying this precedent, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of attorney’s fees, concluding that the Church's preliminary injunction did not constitute enduring judicial relief that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. View "Maryville Baptist Church v. Beshear" on Justia Law

Aaron Salter spent 15 years in prison for a shooting he did not commit, based on a single eyewitness's testimony. The eyewitness identified Salter from a single mug shot shown by Detective Donald Olsen, who also failed to disclose that the eyewitness had identified another man from a photo array. Salter claims that Olsen's actions led to his wrongful conviction.Salter filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Olsen violated his constitutional rights by withholding exculpatory evidence and conducting an unduly suggestive identification process. Olsen moved for summary judgment, claiming qualified immunity, but the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion. Olsen appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed parts of the appeal for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction but affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the Brady claim and the suggestive identification claim. The court held that there were material disputes of fact regarding whether Olsen withheld evidence and whether the identification process was unduly suggestive and unreliable. The court also found that it was clearly established in 2003 that such actions violated constitutional rights, and thus, Olsen was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Salter v. City of Detroit" on Justia Law

On November 30, 2021, a 15-year-old student, E.C., brought a gun to Oxford High School in Michigan and shot ten students and one teacher, resulting in four student deaths. E.C. pled guilty to first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence. His parents were also convicted of manslaughter. Victims of the shooting filed multiple lawsuits in state court against school and law enforcement officials, alleging various tort claims. The consolidated federal cases here involve claims that school officials violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to due process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan largely dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, holding that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to support an inference that the school officials' actions were so outrageous as to shock the conscience. However, the court allowed one claim to proceed, finding that a statement made by a school counselor, Shawn Hopkins, to E.C.'s parents about contacting Child Protective Services if they did not get counseling for E.C. within 48 hours, could potentially support a constitutional claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal of most claims. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the school officials' actions were so egregious as to violate due process. The court found that the actions of returning E.C.'s backpack and failing to inform other officials about the risk did not constitute affirmative acts that increased the danger to the plaintiffs. The court also held that Hopkins' statement to E.C.'s parents did not demonstrate reckless or callous indifference. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to allow the claim based on Hopkins' statement to proceed and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss all claims. View "St. Juliana v. Oxford Community School District" on Justia Law

George Clark and Kevin Harrington were convicted of murder based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, Bearia Stewart, who later claimed she was coerced by detectives to lie. After nearly two decades in prison, the Wayne County Prosecution Integrity Unit found that Clark and Harrington did not receive a fair trial, leading to the dismissal of charges and their release. Clark and Harrington then sued the detectives, alleging constitutional violations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part and denied in part the detectives' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court denied qualified immunity on claims that the detectives fabricated the eyewitness statement, facilitated prosecution without probable cause, and violated the Brady rule by withholding evidence of coercion and benefits offered to key witnesses. The detectives appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity, holding that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the fabrication of evidence and the lack of probable cause. The court also held that the detectives' actions, if proven, violated clearly established constitutional rights. The case was remanded for trial on the merits. View "Clark v. Abdallah" on Justia Law

Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on a wet shower floor in a county jail. She pursued constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county, corrections officers, and medical personnel. Coleman claimed that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause and that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care. She also questioned whether the county could invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed all claims against all parties. The court found that Coleman failed to allege a plausible constitutional violation regarding the slippery shower and did not connect the inadequate medical care to a county policy or custom. The court also held that Ohio law granted immunity to Hamilton County on the negligence claim. The court allowed Coleman to conduct limited discovery to identify unnamed officers and nurses, but her subsequent amended complaint was dismissed as it was filed outside the statute of limitations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal, holding that Coleman’s claims accrued on the date of her accident and that her amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court also found that Coleman did not meet the requirements for equitable tolling, as she did not allege facts showing that she was intentionally misled or tricked into missing the deadline. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. View "Coleman v. Hamilton County Bd. of County Commissioners" on Justia Law

In 1995, Garr Keith Hardin and Jeffrey Clark were convicted of murdering Rhonda Sue Warford based on forensic evidence and witness testimonies. Robert Thurman, a forensic serologist, testified that a hair found at the crime scene was similar to Hardin’s hair. After over two decades in prison, DNA testing revealed that the hair did not belong to Hardin, leading a state court to vacate their convictions. Hardin and Clark then sued Thurman under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he failed to disclose observation notes that suggested the hair might not have matched Hardin’s hair sample, violating his obligations under Brady v. Maryland.The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied Thurman’s qualified-immunity defense for Hardin’s Brady claim but granted summary judgment on other claims. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Thurman should have recognized the exculpatory value of his notes and that the notes were material to Hardin’s defense. The court also held that Thurman could not invoke qualified immunity because Hardin’s Brady rights were clearly established before 1992.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision in part and dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Thurman’s arguments that the notes were not exculpatory or material, as these were mixed questions of law and fact. However, the court rejected Thurman’s argument that the law in the mid-1990s did not clearly establish that Brady’s duty of disclosure applied to forensic scientists, affirming that such duties were clearly established and applicable to Thurman. View "Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government" on Justia Law