Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that prison officials violated his procedural due process rights in connection with a disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff moves for appointment of counsel in his appeal from the district court's dismissal of his complaint. The court extended its reasoning in Bedoya v. Coughlin and concluded that an inmate may likewise implicitly waive the right to attend his disciplinary hearing by refusing to attend after receiving notice and being given an opportunity to attend. Accordingly, the court denied the motion and dismissed the appeal as frivolous. View "Smith v. Fischer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that New York General Business Law Section 518 violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Section 518 provides that “[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.” The district court entered a final judgment declaring Section 518 unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The court reversed, concluding that Section 518 does not violate the First Amendment as applied to single-sticker‐price sellers. And, because it is unclear whether the law applies outside that specific context, there is no basis for the court to conclude that the law violates the First Amendment in any of its applications, much less on its face. The district court also erred in holding that Section 518 is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded that Section 518 enjoys a core set of applications in which it is not unconstitutionally vague - namely, its application to sellers who post single sticker-prices - the court found abstention appropriate in this context also, and therefore did not reach the balance of plaintiffs’ vagueness challenge. The court remanded for dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. View "Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and alleging that the New York law criminalizing the possession of “gravity knives,” N.Y. Penal Law 265.00(5), 265.01(1), is unconstitutionally vague. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that plaintiffs did not have standing. The court concluded that Plaintiffs Native Leather, Copeland, and Perez have standing to challenge defendants’ application of the statute because each has expressed a present intent to possess such knives (but for defendants’ challenged enforcement actions) and each has demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution based on defendants’ (a) recent enforcement actions against them, (b) express threat to prosecute Native Leather further under the terms of a deferred prosecution agreement, and (c) continued defense of the wrist‐flick test that allegedly prompted plaintiffs’ past violation charges. The court further concluded that its precedent precludes Knife Rights and Knife Rights Foundation from asserting standing on behalf of their members under 42 U.S.C. 1983; nor can these organizational plaintiffs demonstrate standing to sue on their own behalf based on claimed injury to their activities from expenditures diverted to oppose defendants’ actions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend their complaint a second time to address defects in standing. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, a former prosecutor and a former audit-investigator, alleging that defendants deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial by intentionally manipulating the information contained on spreadsheet summary charts before they were presented to the grand jury in order to create the false impression that plaintiff billed Medicaid for dental services that he did not provide. The jury rendered a verdict in plaintiff's favor and the district court subsequently denied defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial. The court concluded that the actions of defendants upon which plaintiff bases his claims were the knowing creation of false or misleading evidence by a government officer acting in an investigative capacity; the court has held that such activity by a government official qualifies as an unconstitutional deprivation of the victimʹs rights; moreover, this was clearly established at the time of defendantsʹ conduct; and therefore, defendants not entitled to qualified immunity. The court further concluded that defendants waived their general‐verdict rule argument and are therefore not entitled to a new trial despite the district courtʹs conclusion that one of the three factual bases for the juryʹs conclusion as to liability was insufficiently substantiated by the evidence presented at trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Morse v. Fusto" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and New York state law, against the City, the Police Department, and two Police Department employees, alleging constitutional and tortious injuries resulting from the use of physical force to eject him from the Albany City Court. The district court dismissed the complaint. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his claims against Officer Blesser, in his individual capacity. The court concluded that, while the law in this circuit holds that an order to depart a public place that allows a person to go anywhere else he wishes does not, without more, effect a Fourth Amendment seizure, under Sheppard v. Beerman, where, as here, a plaintiff alleges that the ordering official used physical force intentionally to restrain plaintiff and control his movements, the officer’s conduct may or may not be reasonable, but the Fourth Amendment claim cannot be dismissed for failure plausibly to plead seizure. The court concluded, however, that plaintiff's First Amendment claim was correctly dismissed because he has not alleged either his engagement in expressive conduct or any impairment of his access to judicial records, plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was correctly dismissed because defendant Blesser’s alleged conduct falls well within the ambit of a traditional battery claim. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and affirmed in all other respects, remanding for further proceedings. View "Salmon v. Blesser" on Justia Law

The EEOC filed suit against Sterling under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., alleging that Sterling engaged in a nationwide practice of sex‐ based pay and promotion discrimination. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding after conducting discovery and found that the EEOC failed to prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre‐suit investigation and recommended summary judgment on that basis. The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment to Sterling. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC investigation rather than whether there was an investigation. Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation. Because the EEOC conducted an investigation in this case, the court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded for further proceedings. View "EEOC v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against MTA, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112-12117. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to MTA and its dismissal of plaintiff's claims. The district court, based on Collins v. New York City Transit Authority, gave almost preclusive weight to the NYSDHR's dismissal of this claim. The court vacated and remanded the dismissal of the disability discrimination claim because Collins addresses only the effect of arbitration awards under a collective bargaining agreement and does not apply to the decisions of state administrative agencies. The NYSDHR’s findings are admissible evidence, and the court held only that consideration of them on a motion for summary judgment, or, if appropriate, at a trial, is not governed by Collins. The court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim. View "Cortes v. MTA New York City Transit" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his claims stemming from his confinement in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan, and then the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, for an extended period of time, allegedly without procedural protections, and in retaliation for protected speech. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to file his complaint within the three‐year statute of limitations applicable to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics claims. In this case, plaintiff's claim as he has pled it, assuming it otherwise is viable, accrued only after the defendants had confined him in the SHU for some threshold period of time. Therefore, the court concluded that the continuing violation doctrine does apply to plaintiffʹs Eighth Amendment claim, but that it does not apply to his First or Fifth Amendment claims. Further, certain aspects of his Fifth Amendment claim may be timely. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part. vacated in part, and remanded in part for further proceedings. View "Gonzalez v. Hasty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a high school math teacher, filed suit against the District, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two principals. Plaintiff alleged that defendants discriminated against him because of his Hispanic ethnicity and that they retaliated against him after he complained of discrimination. The district court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held, however, that certain of plaintiff's claims were not time-barred, as the district court had concluded; retaliation claims are actionable under section 1983; a Title VII plaintiff need not plead a prima facie case of discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss; and, in this case, plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded discrimination and retaliation claims. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit pro se under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against several corrections officers and supervisors at a New York corrections facility, alleging that, while he was incarcerated, he endured a cruel campaign of harassment at the hands of corrections officers in retaliation for his refusal to provide false information against another inmate. The district court subsequently granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the grant of summary judgment conflicts with Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it reached, sua sponte without notice, claims not briefed in defendants’ motion. The court reiterated the proper standard for granting summary judgment on grounds not raised by the movant, which was not met here; the court clarified the standard for a claim for unconstitutional retaliation; the court disagreed with the district court’s analysis of plaintiff’s claim for unsanitary conditions; the court revived plaintiff's claims for nutritionally inadequate meals, theft of legal documents, harassment, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment; and the court suggested to the district court that on remand plaintiff receive appointed counsel, an opportunity to take further discovery, and leave to file a second amended complaint. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Willey v. Kirkpatrick" on Justia Law