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

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling denying Appellants’ motion for summary judgment based on a qualified immunity defense to a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim for damages. Appellants appealed the district court’s denial of their respective summary judgment motions based on a qualified immunity defense to a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claim for damages asserted by Appellee. Appellee initiated the underlying action against Appellants, and various other South Carolina state officials after his son, (“Decedent”), was struck and killed by a vehicle while he was a pedestrian on Interstate 95 (“I-95”) in South Carolina.   Appellee alleged that Appellants violated Decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to be free from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by failing to ensure Decedent was transported to a hospital or jail where he could receive adequate medical attention. The district court determined that, while Decedent’s right to freedom from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, a genuine dispute of material fact barred a ruling on qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage.   Appellants contest the district court’s ruling that Decedent’s constitutional right was “clearly established.” The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care and freedom from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was clearly established and particularly recognized by both the Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court at the time of the events in question. Further, the court wrote that Appellants have also not addressed the court’s “fundamental error” standard, nor have they attempted to show that they can meet it here. Thus, Appellants have not satisfied their burden of identifying a “fundamental error” warranting reversal on a ground not raised before the district court. View "Paul Tarashuk v. Jamie Givens" on Justia Law

Plaintiff a deaf and blind inmate, claims he was denied the same access and enjoyment available to inmates without disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). And he contends the prison’s head covering policies substantially burdened his Islamic faith as prohibited by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”).   The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the prison on Plaintiff’s ADA claim. But vacated the district court’s order rejecting the RLUIPA claim and remanded. The court held that no reasonable factfinder could conclude on the record that the accommodations provided to Plaintiff did not afford him “meaningful access” to all programs at the prison.   However, the court found that the policy required Plaintiff to either violate his religious beliefs— by refraining from wearing a head covering at all times—or risk discipline at the prison for violating the policy. In other words, the prison’s head-covering policy placed Plaintiff between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Doing so substantially burdens his religious beliefs under the RLUIPA. Thus, the court found that Plaintiff met his burden of showing that the prior policy imposed a substantial burden. Thus, the court vacated that portion of the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. View "David Richardson v. Harold Clarke" on Justia Law

After East Carolina University (“ECU”) dismissed Plaintiff from its School of Social Work’s Master’s Degree program, Neal sued the university alleging that its decision discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment to ECU based on its conclusion that Plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact to support two elements of a prima facie case of discrimination. It determined that the record did not show that (1) she was “otherwise qualified to participate in ECU’s” program or (2) ECU dismissed her “on the basis of” her disability. Plaintiff challenged both grounds on appeal.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that for purposes of assessing ADA compliance, universities have a responsibility to the entire academic community and to the public to ensure that a student is qualified to meet the lawful requirements of their program, especially where, as here, conferral of a degree is a prerequisite to state licensure requirements. ECU properly exercised its discretion in that regard and assisted Plaintiff during her enrollment in the MSW Program. It gave her a second chance with the out-of-order readmission in the Spring 2014 semester. She received a third chance in the Fall 2014 semester following the A&R Committee proceeding. And MSW Program faculty gave her a fourth chance as they tried to work with her thereafter. Now, Plaintiff wants to force ECU to provide a fifth chance. The ADA contains no such requirement given an absence of evidence supporting her claim of discriminatory dismissal. View "Olivia Neal v. East Carolina University" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder in the Circuit Court for the City of Newport News, Virginia. After exhausting direct appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals and the Virginia Supreme Court, Petitioner filed a pro se writ of habeas corpus in the Newport News Circuit Court. That court dismissed the petition. Petitioner, proceeding pro se, unsuccessfully appealed the dismissal to the Virginia Supreme Court. After that, Petitioner filed a 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 petition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court ordered the state to file a responsive pleading to show cause why the writ should not be granted. It also instructed the state to treat the order as a “request that the records of the state criminal trial and habeas corpus proceedings, if pertinent and available, be forwarded to the Clerk’s Office in Alexandria, Virginia. Petitioner appealed the denial of Rule 60(b) motion. When the district court sent its records to the Fourth Circuit, the state habeas records were not included.   The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded to the district court with the following instructions: (1) the state must file a Rule 5-compliant Answer; (2) the district court shall determine if it has the records it requested—those “pertinent and available”— and, in this inquiry, address the state habeas records that were missing when the file was transferred to the Fourth Circuit; and (3) finally, the district court shall reconsider the state’s motion to dismiss, considering the complete answer and the records it first requested. View "Arthur Sanford v. Harold Clarke" on Justia Law

Defendants are The Source of Public Data, L.P.; ShadowSoft, Inc.; HarlingtonStraker Studio, Inc.; and D.B. (collectively “Public Data”). Plaintiffs’ allegation that all Defendants are alter egos jointly responsible for any Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) liability arising from the business activities conducted on PublicData.com. Public Data sought Section 230(c)(1) protection against four claims brought against it for violating the FCRA. The district court agreed that the claims were precluded by Section 230(c)(1). Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling. THe court explained that Section 230(c)(1) provides protection to interactive computer services. But it does not insulate a company from liability for all conduct that happens to be transmitted through the internet. Instead, protection under Section 230(c)(1) extends only to bar certain claims, in specific circumstances, against particular types of parties. Here, the district court erred by finding that Section 230(c)(1) barred all counts asserted against Public Data. To the contrary, on the facts as alleged, it does not apply to any of them. Counts One and Three are not barred because they do not seek to hold Public Data liable as a publisher under the provision. Counts Two and Four are not barred because Public Data is itself an information content provider for the information relevant to those counts. View "Tyrone Henderson, Sr. v. The Source for Public Data, L.P." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claims against the U.S. Attorney General because she failed an allegedly discriminatory physical-fitness test that was a condition of her federal employment and was told to either retake the test, resign, or be fired. She resigned. The district court dismissed her complaint for lack of Article III standing, finding that her resignation did not constitute an “adverse employment action” that could serve as the basis of either claim.   The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings. The court held that the district court inappropriately intertwined its standing analysis with the merits. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered financial and job-related injuries in fact that are fairly traceable to the government’s action and likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. View "Jane DiCocco v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 22 years for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and for three substantive wire-fraud counts, based on the three wire transmissions sent to victims in Maryland.The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The court explained that Defendant hatched a massive fraudulent scheme that targeted victims in the United States using wires in the United States. Even though the court agreed that the wire-fraud statute does not apply extraterritorially, its focus is the misuse of wires in the United States for fraudulent purposes, so Defendant was convicted of the domestic act of using wires in the United States. The district court did not err in refusing to impose the extraordinary remedy of granting use immunity to witnesses, and the court sufficiently cleansed the proceeding of any prejudice caused by the juror who overheard outside the discussion of the defendant. Any error based on the district court’s consideration of Defendant’s extraterritorial conduct at sentencing was harmless. But the district court too broadly imposed restitution, so the court remanded for a new restitution order. Finally, the court did not plainly err when imposing supervised release conditions, and the conditions were both reasonable and constitutional. The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed except for the restitution order. View "US v. Lee Elbaz" on Justia Law

The City of Charlotte appeals the district court’s order granting attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs, an antiabortion organization and four of its members, following a consent judgment. The district court held that Plaintiffs were “prevailing parties” under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988. On appeal, Plaintiffs also urged the court to reconsider the district court’s fee award.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that “prevailing party” is a legal term of art that the court interprets consistently across all federal fee-shifting statutes. A civil-rights plaintiff “‘prevails’ when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.” The court explained that here, the consent judgment easily passes the test. The City doesn’t dispute that the consent decree is enforceable by the court and that it alters the legal relationship between Plaintiffs and the City. As the district court explained, the City’s enforcement of the Picketing Ordinance previously “resulted in a complete ban” on “pedestrian vehicular approaches.” Thus, because the consent judgment conferred prevailing-party status on Plaintiffs, the district court was free to award them fees and costs. View "Cities4Life, Inc. v. City of Charlotte" on Justia Law

Appellants sought to develop thousands of acres of land in Belize, which they marketed as a luxury resort called “Sanctuary Belize.” In their sales pitch to U.S. consumers, many promises were made but not kept. In 2018, the FTC shut this down, calling Sanctuary Belize Enterprise (SBE) a “scam,” and alleging violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule for making misrepresentations to consumers. The FTC also brought contempt charges against Appellant stemming from past judgments against him. After an extensive bench trial, the district court found ample evidence of violative and contumacious conduct, ultimately ruling in the FTC’s favor.   Appellants appealed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed in large part, the one exception being vacating the equitable monetary judgments in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. The court explained that the various permanent injunctions—including the prohibition of SBE individuals and entities from engaging in further misrepresentations—are appropriately tailored to prevent similar scams in the future. Further, the court held that the district court in Maryland was within its discretion to keep the case because the FTC’s allegations in the Sanctuary Belize case rested on the same facts as the telemarketing contempt charges stemming from AmeriDebt, which was litigated in Maryland and which no party had asked to transfer. View "Federal Trade Commission v. Andris Pukke" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) after conceding removability from the United States during removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ denied both forms of relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed and entered a final order of removal. In so holding the BIA found that Petitioner failed to show the necessary nexus between her asserted protected ground and the persecution she suffered.The Fourth Circuit affirmed. One necessary element for an applicant seeking asylum or withholding of removal is that an applicant’s claimed persecution occurred, or will occur, on account of a statutorily protected ground that applies to her. If an applicant fails to satisfy the nexus requirement, she cannot obtain asylum or withholding of removal. The Fourth Circuit held that Petitioner failed to establish the requisite nexus based on the facts presented. View "Maira Madrid-Montoya v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law