Should Animals Be Allowed to Sue?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on case in which Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) brought a civil damages suit on behalf of an abused horse, now named Justice, against the horse’s former owner. Colb dismantles three arguments critics raise in opposition to recognizing abused animals as plaintiffs in lawsuits such as this one.

Read More

Hamilton v. City of Hayti

Docket: 18-3450

Opinion Date: January 28, 2020

Judge: James B. Loken

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the city and others, seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging unlawful arrest, detention, and prosecution, and the setting of an excessive cash-only bond that plaintiff was unable to pay due to indigency. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the section 1983 claims and held that the municipal judge was entitled to absolute judicial immunity from plaintiff's arrest and detention damage claims based on an invalid warrant issued by the court clerk; the judge's practice of setting a bond schedule conditioning the pretrial release of persons accused of municipal ordinance violations was a judicial act within his jurisdiction to which judicial immunity attaches; and the district court correctly concluded that the clerk was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Even if the court considered the judge's judicial bond practice to be part of municipal custom or usage, the court would still affirm the dismissal of the claim because there was no evidence of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's rights as an indigent arrestee. Finally, the court held that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find a meeting of the minds between defendants on the conspiracy claim.

Williams v. City of Sherwood

Docket: 18-2982

Opinion Date: January 28, 2020

Judge: Arnold

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that it had jailed her without inquiring into whether she had the means to pay the fines imposed and without appointing counsel for her. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claims on the ground that a judgment in her favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of her conviction or sentence under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims, although on different grounds. The court held that the judicial decisions of a duly elected judge are not the kind of decisions that expose municipalities to section 1983 liability. Furthermore, neither the city council nor the mayor has the power to set judicial policy for Arkansas district court judges or the power to ratify their decisions even if the city's policymakers knew of the judge's conduct and approved of it. In this case, the court held that the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's claims about the district court's failure to inquire into her indigency and failure to appoint counsel, along with her related, derivative claims about the practices in the Sherwood District Court.