Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Johnnie Franklin Wills, a state prisoner, filed a habeas petition challenging his life sentence under West Virginia’s recidivist statute. He argued that the judicially crafted test for determining whether a recidivist life sentence is proportional to the crime is unconstitutionally vague. Wills was convicted of grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny in 2016, and due to his prior eight felony convictions, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after fifteen years under the recidivist statute.The West Virginia courts denied Wills relief, stating that the void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply to their proportionality test. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed this decision, distinguishing Wills’s case from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Johnson v. United States and Sessions v. Dimaya, which invalidated certain statutory provisions as unconstitutionally vague. The state court maintained that the proportionality test was clear and did not fall under the same scrutiny as the statutes in Johnson and Dimaya.Wills then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia also denied. The district court found that the state court’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. The court noted that the proportionality test serves as a judicial limitation on the recidivist statute, unlike the statutory mandates in Johnson and Dimaya.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the state court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the U.S. Supreme Court has not extended the void-for-vagueness doctrine to judicially crafted proportionality tests. Therefore, Wills’s habeas petition was denied. View "Wills v. Pszczolkowski" on Justia Law

Carmen Wannamaker-Amos, a Black woman, worked in quality management at Purem Novi, Inc. for over thirty years. Despite receiving positive reviews from her supervisors, she faced negative treatment from Javad Hosseini, Purem’s chief quality executive. Hosseini repeatedly urged her supervisors to fire her, and in January 2020, after a problem with an automobile part, he requested her termination. Purem terminated her two days later. Wannamaker-Amos sued Purem, alleging racial and sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted summary judgment to Purem, ruling that Wannamaker-Amos failed to produce sufficient evidence that the nondiscriminatory reason given for her firing was pretextual. The court found that she did not meet her employer’s legitimate expectations at the time of her termination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that numerous issues of material fact were in dispute. The court found that Wannamaker-Amos provided ample evidence to dispute Purem’s claims about her performance and that Hosseini’s criticisms were baseless. The court also noted that Purem’s shifting reasons for her termination and failure to follow its own disciplinary policies could indicate pretext for discrimination. The court emphasized that it is the role of the jury to decide which party’s evidence is more persuasive.The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing a jury to determine whether Wannamaker-Amos was subjected to intentional discrimination. View "Wannamaker-Amos v. Purem Novi, Inc." on Justia Law

Kristen M. Barnett, a former registered nurse at INOVA Health Care Services, refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to her religious beliefs. INOVA had a policy requiring vaccination unless an exemption was granted. Barnett initially received a medical exemption but later requested a religious exemption, which was denied. She was subsequently placed on administrative leave and then discharged for noncompliance. Barnett filed a lawsuit against INOVA, alleging religious discrimination under Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted INOVA's motion to dismiss Barnett's complaint in its entirety. The court found that Barnett failed to state a claim for reasonable accommodation under Title VII because her objection did not raise issues related to abortion or fetal cells. The court also dismissed her disparate treatment claims under Title VII and the VHRA, finding them duplicative and lacking a comparator.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Barnett had sufficiently alleged religious discrimination for all three claims at the motion to dismiss stage. The court found that Barnett's allegations demonstrated her sincere religious beliefs and that her refusal to receive the vaccine was religious in nature. The court also found that Barnett's allegations supported a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent by INOVA.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Barnett's claims to proceed. View "Barnett v. INOVA Health Care Services" on Justia Law

Davina Ricketts, a sophomore at a high school in North Carolina, decided to run for student council to address its lack of diversity. She faced racial harassment and cyberbullying from peers, and the school district allegedly failed to intervene. Ricketts filed a lawsuit claiming the school district was deliberately indifferent to her harassment. The district court dismissed her complaint and denied her motion to amend, stating her proposed amended complaint also failed to state a claim. Ricketts appealed the denial of her motion for leave to amend.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina initially dismissed Ricketts' complaint and denied her motion to amend on futility grounds. The court reasoned that her proposed amended complaint did not sufficiently state claims for deliberate indifference, retaliation, or equal protection violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Ricketts sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference, retaliation, and equal protection claims. The court held that Ricketts' allegations of racial harassment, the school administrators' authority and actual knowledge of the harassment, and their deliberate indifference were sufficient to state a Title VI claim. The court also found that Ricketts sufficiently alleged retaliation by showing she engaged in protected activity, faced materially adverse actions, and established a causal connection between the two. Additionally, the court held that Ricketts sufficiently alleged an equal protection claim against individual defendants and the Board of Education by showing discriminatory intent and a municipal custom or policy of indifference.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, directed the district court to allow Ricketts to amend her complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ricketts v. Wake County Public School System" on Justia Law

In 2018, Gary Washington was released from prison after serving 31 years for murder, following a writ of actual innocence. Washington filed a civil lawsuit against the police officers involved in his case, alleging they coerced a witness into providing false testimony, which was later recanted. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, dismissing Washington's claims of due process violations, malicious prosecution, detention without probable cause, failure to intervene, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court found Washington was collaterally estopped from relying on the witness's recantation because a prior state court had found it incredible. The district court also dismissed Washington's alternative due process Brady claim and his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim on independent grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the state court decision granting Washington a writ of actual innocence was inconsistent with the prior post-conviction ruling that the recantation was incredible, precluding the application of collateral estoppel. The court also found that applying collateral estoppel to prohibit Washington from litigating the alleged misconduct was incompatible with equitable principles. The court agreed with the district court's dismissal of Washington's alternative due process Brady claim but reversed the dismissal of his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding that wrongful incarceration for 31 years could constitute severe emotional distress.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in part and affirmed it in part, allowing Washington's claims of due process violations, malicious prosecution, detention without probable cause, failure to intervene, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed. View "Washington v. Pelligrini" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson were unable to register to vote in Virginia due to felony convictions. King was convicted of felony drug possession in 2018, and Johnson was convicted of multiple felonies, including drug possession, in 2021. Virginia's constitution disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless their civil rights are restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority. King and Johnson argued that this disenfranchisement violated the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal statute from 1870, which they claimed restricted Virginia from amending its constitution to disenfranchise individuals for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed three of the four counts in the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim but allowed one count based on the Virginia Readmission Act to proceed. The defendants, including various state election officials and the Governor of Virginia, moved to dismiss the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds, which the district court rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs' claim met the requirements of the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows suits for prospective relief against state officials to prevent ongoing violations of federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision to allow the claim to proceed against most defendants but reversed the decision regarding the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of the Commonwealth, finding that they lacked enforcement responsibility for the challenged state action. The court concluded that the Governor and Secretary must be dismissed from the case on sovereign immunity grounds. The district court's order was thus affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "King v. Youngkin" on Justia Law

Ashleigh Gelin died by suicide in November 2013 while incarcerated at the Baltimore County Detention Center. Her parents, Edward and Deborah Gelin, sued Baltimore County and several correctional officers, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Maryland common law. They claimed the officers showed deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's safety and were grossly negligent.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland partially granted and partially denied the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the complaint did not properly allege deliberate indifference to Ashleigh's mental health needs but did plausibly allege indifference to her physical safety. The court held that the officers could not claim qualified immunity or Maryland common-law public official immunity and denied Baltimore County's claim of governmental immunity. The County's subsequent motion for reconsideration was partially addressed, but the court did not rule on whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the County's appeal was premature because the district court had not yet ruled on all issues raised in the County's motion for reconsideration. Specifically, the district court had not decided whether the officers could assert public official immunity against the negligence claims. As a result, the Fourth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance, pending the district court's resolution of the remaining issue. The court directed the parties to inform it once the district court had made a final ruling on the pending issue. View "Gelin v. Baltimore County" on Justia Law

Brandon Williams was involved in a series of interactions with Norfolk, Virginia police officers. Initially, Officer John D. McClanahan falsely charged Williams with misdemeanor trespassing and perjured himself at trial to secure a conviction. Williams appealed and used a recording to expose McClanahan's perjury, leading to the dismissal of the charge by the state appellate court. Two weeks later, Williams was hit by a speeding drunk driver, and responding officers, including McClanahan, allegedly falsified the accident report to deprive Williams of his right to sue the other driver.Williams filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting claims of retaliation for exercising his First and Sixth Amendment rights, conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The district court dismissed Williams' retaliation claim, finding he failed to plead an adverse action, and dismissed his conspiracy claim for lack of a constitutional violation. The court also dismissed Williams' state law IIED claims without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Williams adequately alleged that the officers' intentional misrepresentation on the accident report would likely deter him from recording police activity and defending himself at trial in the future. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of his retaliation claim. The court also vacated the dismissal of his conspiracy claim, finding a plausible constitutional violation, and remanded the claim for reconsideration. Finally, the court vacated the dismissal of Williams' IIED claims and remanded them for further consideration. View "Williams v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The case involves Warren Balogh, who participated in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The rally, organized to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, quickly turned violent between protesters and counterprotesters. Balogh alleged that the Charlottesville Police, under Chief Al Thomas, and the Virginia State Police, under Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, failed to protect his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by not intervening in the violence and declaring an unlawful assembly, which he claimed amounted to a heckler's veto.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia dismissed Balogh's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no clearly established right to police intervention to protect First Amendment rights from third-party violence. The court also held that Balogh failed to state a plausible claim for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, noting that the police did not selectively enforce the unlawful assembly order and that Balogh's allegations of intentional discrimination were conclusory.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Fourth Circuit held that the First Amendment does not obligate police to protect protesters' constitutional rights amid violence, explicitly stating that the First Amendment is a shield against invasive speech regulations, not a sword to wield against violent disruptions. The court also found that Balogh's equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment failed because he did not provide sufficient facts to show intentional or purposeful discrimination. Additionally, the court rejected Balogh's Monell claim against the City of Charlottesville, as he did not demonstrate that the City Manager, the final policymaker, had ratified or delegated authority to Chief Thomas. View "Balogh v. Virginia" on Justia Law

Two plaintiffs, Smith-Phifer and Patterson, served with the Charlotte Fire Department for over twenty years and alleged racial discrimination by the department. They filed a lawsuit against the City of Charlotte, claiming violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, and the North Carolina Constitution. The case was initially brought in state court but was removed to federal court. Smith-Phifer and the City reached a settlement during her trial, while Patterson's case was delayed due to illness and later went to mediation.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted Smith-Phifer and Patterson’s motions to enforce their settlement agreements. The court found that the City breached the agreements by not treating the settlement payments as pension-eligible wages under the Charlotte Firefighters Retirement Systems Act. The City appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its decision, particularly in not holding an evidentiary hearing for Patterson’s case and in its interpretation of the settlement terms regarding pension eligibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s order regarding Patterson, stating that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether a complete settlement agreement was reached. The court found that there were unresolved factual disputes about the terms of the agreement, particularly regarding sick leave and pension eligibility.However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision regarding Smith-Phifer. It held that the City breached the settlement agreement by failing to make the required retirement deduction from the payment to Smith-Phifer. The court concluded that the payment was “Compensation” under the Charlotte Firefighters Retirement Systems Act, which mandated the deduction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these findings. View "Smith-Phifer v. City of Charlotte" on Justia Law