The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Liability Arguments

Albright v. Oliver - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Oct 1993 12:00:00 -0500

Illinois police obtained a warrant to arrest Kevin Albright after he was seen selling a substance which look liked an illegal drug. Upon hearing of the warrant, Albright surrendered to police detective Roger Oliver. A trial court dismissed the charge because it did not state an offense under Illinois law.

Albright claimed that Oliver violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right by prosecuting him without probable cause. He filed suit against Oliver under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides relief to those deprived of civil rights. The federal District Court dismissed the suit because it did not state a claim under Section 1983. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that relief provided by Section 1983 for prosecution without probable cause is valid only if the prosecution caused a consequence such as loss of employment or incarceration.

Allen v. Mccurry - Oral Argument

Wed, 08 Oct 1980 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Brandon v. Holt - Oral Argument

Mon, 05 Nov 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Briscoe v. Lahue - Oral Argument

Tue, 09 Nov 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown - Oral Argument

Tue, 05 Nov 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Jill Brown brought a damages action against Bryan County alleging that that its Deputy Stacy Burns had arrested her with excessive force, and that it was liable for her injuries because its Sheriff B. J. Moore had hired Burns without adequately reviewing his background. Burns had pleaded guilty to various driving infractions and other misdemeanors, including assault and battery. Moore, whom the county stipulated was its Sheriff's Department policymaker, testified that he had obtained Burns' driving and criminal records, but had not closely reviewed either before hiring Burns. The District Court denied the county's motions for judgment as a matter of law, which asserted that a policymaker's single hiring decision could not give rise to municipal liability. Brown prevailed following a jury trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the county was properly found liable based on Moore's decision to hire Burns.

Buckley v. Fitzsimmons - Oral Argument

Mon, 22 Feb 1993 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Burnett v. Grattan - Oral Argument

Mon, 26 Mar 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Burns v. Reed - Oral Argument

Wed, 28 Nov 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Canton v. Harris - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Carey v. Piphus - Oral Argument

Tue, 06 Dec 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Carpenters v. Scott - Oral Argument

Tue, 26 Apr 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Chardon v. Fumero Soto - Oral Argument

Wed, 23 Mar 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams - Oral Argument

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:00:00 -0500

Rancho Palos Verdes, a city in California, gave Mark Abrams a permit to construct an antenna on his property for amateur use. But when the city learned Abrams used the antenna for commercial purposes, the city forced Abrams to stop until he got a commercial use permit. Abrams applied and the city refused to give him the permit. Abrams then sued in federal district court, alleging the city violated his rights under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Abrams sought damages under a federal liability law that allowed people to sue for damages for federal rights violations.

The district court agreed with Abrams and ordered the city to give Abrams the permit. But the court refused Abrams' request for damages under the separate federal liability law. The court said Congress intended for violations of rights under the Telecommunications Act to include only remedies specifically found in that act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled that because the act did not contain a "comprehensive remedial scheme," Abrams could seek damages under other federal laws.

Collins v. City Of Harker Heights, Texas - Oral Argument

Tue, 05 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Oct 2001 12:00:00 -0500

In 1993, John E. Malesko was assigned to a bedroom on the fifth floor of the Le Marquis Community Correctional Center, a facility that houses federal inmates run by the Correctional Services Corporation (CSC) under contract with the Bureau of Prisons. After CSC instituted a policy requiring inmates residing below the sixth floor to use the stairs rather than the elevator, Malesko, who was afflicted with a heart condition limiting his ability to climb stairs, was exempted form the policy. When a CSC employee did not let Malesko use the elevator, he climbed the stairs, suffered a heart attack, and fell. Subsequently, Malesko filed a suit, alleging that CSC was negligence in refusing him the use of the elevator. Under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized for the first time an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights, the District Court dismissed the suit, finding that such an action may only be maintained against individuals. In reversing, the Court of Appeals reasoned that such private entities should be held liable under Bivens to accomplish Bivens' goal of providing a remedy for constitutional violations.

Crawford-El v. Britton - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Dec 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Leonard Crawford-El, a prisoner in the District of Columbia's correctional system, was ultimately transferred to a federal prison in Florida. Crawford-El's belongings were transferred separately. A correctional officer had Crawford-El's brother-in-law pick his belongs rather than ship them. Crawford-El finally received his belongings months after reaching Florida. Crawford-El filed suit under 42 USC section 1983, which provides that "Every person who... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...." Crawford-El alleged that the diversion of his property was motivated by an intent to retaliate against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The District Court dismissed the complaint. In remanding, the en banc Court of Appeals conclude among other things, that in an unconstitutional-motive case, a plaintiff must establish motive by clear and convincing evidence.

Daniels v. Williams - Oral Argument

Wed, 06 Nov 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Davidson v. Cannon - Oral Argument

Wed, 06 Nov 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Davis v. Scherer - Oral Argument

Mon, 16 Apr 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Dennis v. Higgins - Oral Argument

Wed, 31 Oct 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Dennis v. Sparks - Oral Argument

Wed, 08 Oct 1980 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Domino's Pizza v. McDonald - Oral Argument

Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:00:00 -0500

John McDonald was the president and sole shareholder of JWM Investments. After Domino's terminated its contract with JWM, McDonald brought suit under a section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. Section 1981). McDonald claimed that Domino's had ended its contract because he was black, and that he therefore had a right to sue under the Civil Rights Act, which gives all citizens, regardless of race, the right to make and enforce contracts. Domino's moved to dismiss the case, arguing that McDonald had not been a party to the contract (it had been between Domino's and JWM) and therefore did not have standing to sue. The district court sided with Domino's, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that McDonald had suffered injuries separate from those of JWM and therefore had standing to sue.

Edwards v. Balisok - Oral Argument

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Jerry B. Balisok, a Washington state prison inmate, was found guilty of prison rules infractions resulting in the loss of thirty days of good time, credit he had previously earned toward his release. Balisok alleged that the procedures used in his disciplinary hearing violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Balisok also alleged that the proceedings were deceitful and biased. Under federal law Balisok filed for a statement declaring the procedures unconstitutional, compensatory and punitive damages for their use, and an injunction to prevent future violations. The District Court held a state prisoner's claim for damages is not conceivable if a judgement for him would imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. The Court of Appeals reversed and held that claims challenging only the procedures used in a disciplinary hearing are always cognizable.

Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks - Oral Argument

Wed, 18 Jan 1978 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Forrester v. White - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Nov 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles - Oral Argument

Tue, 03 Oct 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co. - Oral Argument

Wed, 01 Apr 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Graham v. Connor - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Feb 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hafer v. Melo - Oral Argument

Tue, 15 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hardin v. Straub - Oral Argument

Wed, 22 Mar 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Haring v. Prosise - Oral Argument

Wed, 20 Apr 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Heck v. Humphrey - Oral Argument

Mon, 18 Apr 1994 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hill v. McDonough - Oral Argument

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:00:00 -0500

Clarence Hill was sentenced to death in Florida, which ordinarily uses a three-drug combination for executions. Hill claimed that this particular form of lethal injection was unnecessarily and gratuitously painful, and that it therefore violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. However, Hill had previously filed for a federal writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction, and the federal district court ruled that his new challenge was the practical equivalent of a second habeas corpus appeal. Successive habeas corpus appeals are not allowed under 28 U.S.C. 2244, and so the district court rejected Hill's petition. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Imbler v. Pachtman - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Kalina v. Fletcher - Oral Argument

Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Lynne Kalina, a Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for King County, Washington, commenced criminal proceedings against Rodney Fletcher, in connection with a school robbery, by filing the appropriate documents. Included in those documents was a "Certification for Determination of Probable Cause." Based on the certification, the trial court found probable cause, and Fletcher was arrested. Kalina's certification contained two inaccurate factual statements: that Fletcher had "never been associated with the school in any manner and did not have permission to enter the school or to take any property," and that Fletcher had been identified asking for an appraisal of a computer stolen from the school. Subsequently, Fletcher sued Kalina for damages, alleging that she had violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The Federal District Court denied her motion for summary judgment, holding that she was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and that whether qualified immunity would apply was a question of fact. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Kolstad v. American Dental Association - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:00:00 -0500

Carole Kolstad sued the American Dental Association (ADA) for gender discrimination, under Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title II), when it promoted a man instead of her. At trial, the District Court denied Kolstad's request for punitive damages based on a showing that the ADA acted with "malice" and "reckless indifference" to her federally protected rights. When the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, Kolstad appealed and the Supreme Court granted he certiorari.

Kush v. Rutledge - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Jan 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence And Coordination Unit - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Loeffler v. Frank - Oral Argument

Mon, 11 Jan 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Malley v. Briggs - Oral Argument

Wed, 13 Nov 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Mcdonald v. West Branch - Oral Argument

Mon, 27 Feb 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:00:00 -0500

A Monroe County court sentenced Walter McMillian to death for murder. Later evidence, suppressed by Monroe County Sheriff Tom Tate, exonerated McMillian after six years on Alabama's death row. McMillian sued Monroe County, claiming that Tate's actions were unconstitutional. McMillian argued that under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a county is liable for the actions of its sheriffs that constitute county policy. A District Court decided that Monroe County was not liable for Tate's actions because the county had no authority over law enforcement.

McMillian appealed, claiming that since the county employed Tate, the county should be liable for Tate. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Monroe County. The Eleventh Circuit held that though Tate was employed by Monroe County, he acted under the authority of the state.

Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura - Oral Argument

Wed, 02 Apr 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. Of Ed. - Oral Argument

Tue, 11 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Monell v. New York City Dept. Of Social Services - Oral Argument

Wed, 02 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Muhammad v. Close - Oral Argument

Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:00:00 -0500

Prison officials sentenced Muhammad, a state prisoner, to seven days of special detention and 30 days of restricted privileges for insolence toward Close, a prison guard. Muhammad filed suit with a magistrate judge under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, seeking $10,000 in damages. Muhammad alleged Close had charged him with threatening behavior in retaliation for other proceedings against Close. Muhammad did not challenge his insolence conviction or punishment. The magistrate judge ruled that Muhammad lacked evidence proving Close acted in retaliation. The U.S. District Court agreed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling for a different reason, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision Heck v. Humphrey (1994). In Heck the Court held that when a prisoner seeks damages in a case that questions his sentence, the prisoner must first have successfully challenged the sentence itself or the conviction itself. The Court of Appeals held that because Muhammad's damages case questioned his sentence, he must first successfully appeal the sentence itself. Going further the Court of Appeals held that Heck applies to all challenges to prison disciplinary proceedings.

Nelson v. Campbell - Oral Argument

Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:00:00 -0500

David Nelson was sentenced to death for murder and scheduled for execution in 1997. A series of appeals and habeas petitions in federal court delayed the execution until 2002, when an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously rejected a claim dealing with the alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. After the final appeal was rejected, Nelson was rescheduled for execution on October 9, 2003.

Nelson filed petition in federal district court alleging that the method of execution proposed by Alabama violated his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Alabama had notified Nelson that, because of damage done to his veins by previous intravenous drug abuse, the execution procedure might require corrections officers to cut through muscles and fat in his arm to get access to a vein that could carry the toxins. He claimed that this was an inhumane method of execution and should therefore be barred. Further, he argued that the petition was not an appeal of his conviction or sentence (appeals of both were prohibited by U.S. Code Title 28, Section 2254, a federal law designed to limit the number of habeas corpus appeals by death row inmates) but rather a freestanding lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the proposed execution procedure. Alabama countered that Nelson's appeal was intended only to prolong his life through procedural delays, exactly what the federal law was designed to prevent, and should therefore be thrown out.

The federal district court agreed with Alabama, holding that Nelson's appeal dealt not just with the procedure but with the sentence itself. It was therefore functionally equivalent to a habeas corpus petition, which was barred by Section 2254. A divided 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed the decision. After the 11th Circuit declined to rehear the case as a whole (en banc), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of execution and then accepted the case for appeal.

Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 31 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Newton v. Rumery - Oral Argument

Mon, 08 Dec 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Ngiraingas v. Sanchez - Oral Argument

Mon, 08 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Oklahoma City v. Tuttle - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Jan 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Owens v. Okure - Oral Argument

Tue, 01 Nov 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Parratt v. Taylor - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Mar 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Paul v. Davis - Oral Argument

Tue, 04 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500

A flyer identifying "active shoplifters" was distributed to merchants in the Louisville, Kentucky area. The flyer included a photograph of Edward C. Davis III, who had been arrestedon a shoplifting charge. When the charge was dismissed, Davis brought an action against Edgar Paul, the Louisville chief of police. Davis alleged that the distribution of the flyer had stigmatized him and deprived him of his constitutional rights.

Pembaur v. Cincinnati - Oral Argument

Mon, 02 Dec 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Procunier v. Navarette - Oral Argument

Tue, 11 Oct 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Pulliam v. Allen - Oral Argument

Wed, 02 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Richardson v. McKnight - Oral Argument

Wed, 19 Mar 1997 12:00:00 -0500

Ronnie Lee McKnight, a prisoner at Tennessee's South Central Correctional Center (SCCC), filed suit, under 42 USC section 1983, against two prison guards after he was placed in extremely tight physical restraints. Previously, the SCCC's management had been privatized by the State. Ultimately, the prison guards, Darryl Richardson and John Walker, asserted a qualified immunity and moved to dismiss the action. The District Court denied the motion, finding that, since a private prison management firm employed them, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji - Oral Argument

Wed, 25 Feb 1987 12:00:00 -0500

Al-Khazraji, a professor and U.S. citizen born in Iraq, filed suit against his former employer and its tenure committee for denying him tenure on the basis of his Arabian race in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. The District Court held that while Al-Kharzraji had properly alleged racial discrimination, the record was insufficient to determine whether he had been subjected to prejudice.

Schweiker v. Chilicky - Oral Argument

Tue, 01 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb - Oral Argument

Wed, 25 Feb 1987 12:00:00 -0500

After its Maryland synagogue was painted with anti-Semitic slogans and symbols, the Shaare Tefila Congregation brought a suit charging the white defendants with racially discriminatory interference with property rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1982. The Maryland District Court dismissed the claims, maintaining that white-on-white violence was not racially discriminatory.

Smith v. Wade - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Nov 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Springfield Township School Dist. v. Knoll - Oral Argument

Mon, 14 Jan 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Springfield v. Kibbe - Oral Argument

Tue, 04 Nov 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

St. Louis v. Praprotnik - Oral Argument

Wed, 07 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Stump v. Sparkman - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Jan 1978 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Tower v. Glover - Oral Argument

Wed, 22 Feb 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Morrison - Oral Argument

Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500

In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

West v. Atkins - Oral Argument

Mon, 28 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

West v. Gibson - Oral Argument

Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:00:00 -0500

In 1991, Congress amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to permit victims of intentional employment discrimination, whether within the private sector or the federal government, to recover compensatory damages. Thereafter, Michael Gibson filed a complaint with the Department of Veterans Affairs, alleging that the Department had discriminated against him by denying him a promotion on the basis of his gender. The Department found against Gibson. Afterwards, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) awarded Gibson the promotion plus backpay. Later Gibson filed suit, in the District Court, seeking compensatory damages and a court order for the Department to comply with the EEOC's order. Subsequently, the Department voluntarily complied with the EEOC's order, but it opposed Gibson's claim for compensatory damages. Ultimately, the District Court dismissed Gibson's complaint. On appeal, the Department supported the District Court's dismissal with the argument that Gibson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in respect to his compensatory damages claim; therefore, he could not bring that claim in court. In reversing, the Court of Appeals rejected the Department's argument. The court viewed the EEOC as lacking the legal power necessary to award compensatory damages. Consequently, there was no administrative remedy to exhaust.

Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police - Oral Argument

Mon, 05 Dec 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Wilson v. Garcia - Oral Argument

Mon, 14 Jan 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Wyatt v. Cole - Oral Argument

Tue, 14 Jan 1992 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Zinermon v. Burch - Oral Argument

Wed, 11 Oct 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.