Apr 2 2026
9th Cir. 8:21-cv-01317-DOC-DFM Unpublished

CHARLES HEAD v. Officer J. ROCHA, individual; KENNETH CHIN, individual; Police Officer QUINN individual; Officer C. MCPHAIL, Officer Badge no. A171 La Habra Police Department

The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for police officers in a civil rights action, ruling that the plaintiff's own deposition testimony defeated his claims of evidence fabrication and malicious prosecution. The court held that the plaintiff's admission that he failed to register his weapon as required by law established probable cause for his arrest, which serves as a complete defense to both constitutional torts.

Apr 2 2026
9th Cir. 6:22-cv-00496-MO Unpublished

ROBIN R. GILLILAND v. Linn County Deputy EASON; Linn County Deputy LEDERER; Linn County Deputy Lt D. RANDALL

The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on Gilliland's Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Deputy Eason, finding a genuine dispute of material fact regarding force used during transport. The court affirmed judgment for all other claims, including those against Deputy Lederer and Lieutenant Randall, while remanding the excessive-force claim for trial.

Apr 2 2026
8th Cir. 24-3261 Panel Decision

Michael Cunningham v. Trooper Amanda Kahler

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of sovereign immunity against a state superintendent in his official capacity, ruling that Missouri law does not waive immunity for prospective relief regarding expunged records. The court held that while the state cannot be sued for damages, the superintendent remains subject to suit to prevent future dissemination of expunged convictions that lead to unlawful arrests.

Apr 2 2026
4th Cir. 24-6538 Per Curiam

Michael Jermaine Grace v. Alamance County; Graham Police Department; Officer Cross; Officer Z. Hulcher; Detective C.T. Denny

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in a civil rights action, holding that the plaintiff waived appellate review of claims barred by the statute of limitations. For the remaining claims, the court found no reversible error after a de novo review of the record.

Apr 2 2026
1st Cir. 24-1822 Panel Decision

BELIA ARLENE-OCASIO; EFRAÍN COLÓN-DAMIANI v. COMISIÓN ESTATAL DE ELECCIONES; JORGE RIVERA RUEDA

The First Circuit reversed a district court order allowing the collection of attorneys' fees against Puerto Rico's election commission, holding that the fee award was a discharged claim under Puerto Rico's PROMESA debt restructuring plan. The court ruled that the claim arose before the plan's effective date and was barred because the plaintiffs failed to file a proof of claim by the administrative expense deadline.

Apr 1 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1462 Panel Decision

Kason Jamison v. Chrislyn Morgan; Jorge Coons; Nancy Ridgeway; Jannette Murray; Dawn Dougherty

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Kason Jamison's pro se civil rights complaint, ruling that his allegations were too vague to provide defendants with notice of the claims against them. The court further held that amendment would be futile because the named defendants are protected by absolute judicial immunity or are private actors not subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Apr 1 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1548 Panel Decision

REUVEN LYAK v. CITY OF HACKENSACK; RAYMOND GUIDETTI

The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a police officer's civil rights claims, holding that internal disagreements over departmental policy do not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege a deprivation of property or liberty interests sufficient to state a procedural due process claim.

Apr 1 2026
10th Cir. 5:24-CV-00743-J Panel Decision

DERRICK DEWAYNE PARKER v. JUDGE PERRY HUDSON; BENJAMIN HARTMAN; TIARA MCMINN; PHILLIP MARTIN; ELIAS RIVERA; TANNER FERRELL; JUSTIN HATCHER; TYLER HEAD; JERMAINE MCCULLUM; CHARLE...

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Derrick Dewayne Parker's civil rights lawsuit, ruling that his claims challenging his criminal conviction were barred because the conviction remained valid. The court further held that judges and prosecutors were protected by absolute immunity, and other allegations failed to state a plausible constitutional violation.