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

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of the issuance and form of automated speeding citations issued under Maryland's speed camera program. The court found that the notice and hearing afforded by Maryland's speed camera statute satisfied due process where notice sent by first-class mail was reasonably calculated to provide actual notice of the speeding violation and civil penalties; the availability of a trial in state court, upon plaintiffs' election, provided adequate opportunity to be heard on any objections prior to the imposition of the statutory penalties; and any flaws in the citation or enforcement process could have been challenged in the state courts and plaintiffs failed to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the towns. View "Snider Int'l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, MD" on Justia Law

After individuals associated with Occupy Columbia were removed by law enforcement from a 24-hour per day protest on the grounds of the South Carolina State House, Occupy Columbia filed suit against defendants, including the Governor, seeking injunctive relief and damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the South Carolina Constitution, and South Carolina's common law. The court granted in part and denied in part. On appeal, defendants sought review of the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants. The court affirmed, concluding that Occupy Columbia has alleged a violation of a clearly established First Amendment right - the right to protest on State House grounds after 6:00 p.m. in the absence of a valid time, place, and manner restriction. View "Occupy Columbia v. Haley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights after defendant, a deputy sheriff, arrested plaintiff for withholding information about possibly rabid animals. On appeal, defendant challenged the judgment of damages plus attorney's fees entered against her in the section 1983 proceeding. The court concluded that, by securing a warrant that lacked adequate evidentiary support, defendant infringed plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from capricious arrest and this constitutional right was clearly established. Therefore, defendant could not shield herself from damages liability by invoking qualified immunity. Because the district court overstated plaintiff's degree of success, it erred in not making an attorney's fee award that would properly reflect her success in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the verdict of damages but vacated the attorney's fee award, remanding for an award of $100,000, exclusive of costs. View "McAfee v. Boczar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state law claims, after plaintiff was shot by the officers. Plaintiff, after hearing sounds of unknown persons outside his home, opened the front door carrying a shotgun and was shot by the officers. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. The district court did not err in denying the officers qualified immunity from plaintiff's excessive force claims under section 1983 where a reasonable officer would not have had probable cause to feel threatened by plaintiff's actions and the constitutional right at issue - the right to be free from deadly force when posing no threat - was clearly established at the time the officers shot plaintiff. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to the section 1983 claims. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of public officers' immunity with respect to plaintiff's state law tort claims. View "Cooper, Sr. v. Sheehan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed suit challenging the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2), a part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), as violating his right to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Plaintiff challenged a provision that caps the attorneys' fee award that a successful prisoner litigant could recover from the government in a civil rights action at 150 percent of the value of the prisoner's monetary judgment. The court declined to apply heightened equal protection scrutiny in this case and joined its sister circuits in concluding that section 1997e(d)(2) was constitutional. Congress's goals in enacting section 1997e(d)(2) included reducing marginal or frivolous prisoner civil rights lawsuits and protecting the public fisc. Such goals were legitimate and Congress acted rationally in adopting the provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Wilkins v. Gaddy" on Justia Law

A putative class of female former and current managers of Family Dollar stores filed suit alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, and Section 216(b) of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. 206(d). The court found that the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint was based on an erroneous interpretation of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and the denial was thus an abuse of discretion. Without resolving the class certification issue, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider whether, based on the court's interpretation of Wal-Mart, the proposed amended complaint satisfied the class certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. View "Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

College Newspapers challenged the ABC's ban on alcohol advertisements as violative of the First Amendment. The court concluded that the challenged regulation violated the First Amendment as applied to the College Newspapers where a regulation of commercial speech must satisfy all four Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y. prongs in order to survive an as-applied challenge, and the regulation at issue here did not satisfy the fourth prong. The district court erred in concluding that the challenged regulation was appropriately tailored to achieve its objective of reducing abusive college drinking. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the ABC. View "Educational Media Co. v. Insley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Sheriff of the City of Hampton, Virginia, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity, alleging that the Sheriff retaliated against plaintiffs in violation of their First Amendment rights by choosing not to reappoint them because of their support of his electoral opponent. The court concluded that, as to the claims of Plaintiffs Sandhofer, Woodward, and Bland, the district court properly analyzed the merits of the claims; as to the claims of Plaintiffs Carter, McCoy, and Dixon, the district court erred by concluding that plaintiffs failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the Sheriff violated their First Amendment rights; nevertheless, the district court properly ruled that the Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on Carter's McCoy's, and Dixon's claims seeking money damages against the Sheriff in his individual capacity, and that the Sheriff was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity against those claims to the extent they sought monetary relief against him in his official capacity; and the Sheriff was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on Carter's, McCoy's and Dixon's claims to the extent the remedy sought was reinstatement. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bland v. Roberts" on Justia Law

This case concerned efforts by the Town of Nags Head, North Carolina, to declare beachfront properties that encroach onto "public trust lands" a nuisance, and regulate them accordingly. In the related appeal of Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, the district court adjudicated the claims but concluded that it was inappropriate for a "federal court to intervene in such delicate state-law matters," and abstained from decision under Burford v. Sun Oil Co. The court reversed the district court's decision to abstain in this case where resolving the claims in this case was not sufficiently difficult or disruptive of that policy to free the district court from its "unflagging obligation to exercise its jurisdiction." Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a correctional officer alleging that he used excessive force against plaintiff. Without provocation, the officer assaulted plaintiff for about two minutes before the officer moved plaintiff to a holding cell, knocking his head against a gate on the way out. The prison staff then kept plaintiff in ambulatory restraints for seventeen hours following the assault. On appeal, the officer appealed the district court's denial of his Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. Because no extraordinary circumstances were applicable to plaintiff's injuries and he suffered no more than de minimis injury, he could not, at the time the assault took place, state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Eighth Amendment. Therefore, the right he sought to avail himself of was not clearly established in the Fourth Circuit at the time of the alleged suit and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hill v. Crum" on Justia Law