National Police Accountability Project - NPAP

Roy Patrick Sargeant v. Aracelie Barfield

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Thu, 02/22/2024 - 16:04

Sargeant v. Barfield addresses whether an incarcerated person can sue a federal employee for First Amendment retaliation under Bivens. The plaintiff in this case was retaliated against for filing a grievance by an officer that was intentionally placing him in cells with people that had a known propensity for violence. 

Our brief argues accountability in these cases will not chill law enforcement job performance.

Jascha Chiaverini et. al. v. Nicholas Evanoff et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Thu, 02/08/2024 - 11:38

The issue in question in Chiaverini is whether a person who has been maliciously prosecuted for a crime can sue if a police officer had probable cause to arrest them for a different crime (i.e. the any crime rule).  Our brief uplifts examples of the incredibly unjust outcomes that would result from continued application of the any crime rule (eg.

Adam Cain v. JPAY, Inc. et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Wed, 01/10/2024 - 16:06

This brief discusses how people that are incarcerated and forced to accept money on release cards are already targeted by financial institutions for predatory schemes and can't afford the high fees and other barriers that come with accessing money through the cards.

Sylvia Gonzalez v. Edward Trevino II, et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Wed, 12/20/2023 - 17:34

This brief argues that retaliatory arrests that do not involve on-the-spot law-enforcement decisions—or that otherwise present objective suggestions of improper motive—occur with sufficient frequency to make the need for an effective remedy compelling. At the same time, the course of retaliatory-arrest litigation also indicates that the availability of such a remedy would not threaten the ability of law enforcement officers to operate effectively.

Molly Smith et. al. v. Governor John Bel Edwards et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Mon, 12/04/2023 - 15:11

This brief addresses the decision by the State of Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) to place Louisiana children in a former death row wing of Angola Prison and subject them to shocking conditions likely to cause severe, lasting harm. Moreover, this devastating deprivation of rights was not imposed equally—Black youth were far more likely to be incarcerated under these traumatic conditions.

Jewell Thomas v. Andrew Nino et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Fri, 12/01/2023 - 11:11

This brief argues that the text and legislative history of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) doesn't require incarcerated plaintiffs to plead a severe injury to sue for excessive force or denial of medical care.

A huge thank you to NPAP members Jim Davy of All Rise Trial & Appellate, Danielle Hamiliton of Northwestern Federal Appellate Litigation Clinic, and Sam Weiss of RightsBehindBars for their work.


Eric Mack v. Office of the District Attorney of the Bristol District

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Thu, 11/16/2023 - 19:32

Plaintiff-Appellee seeks the disclosure of materials related to law enforcement’s actions surrounding a police shooting death under the Public Records Law. The specific disclosures Plaintiff-Appellee seeks bear a direct relation to the perceived legitimacy of the investigation surrounding the death and, ultimately, to the transparency and trust that lie at the heart of the Public Records Law and its recent amendments.

Yamhill County v. Real Property Commonly Known As: 11475 NW Pike Road and Sheryl Lynn Sublet

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Mon, 10/30/2023 - 08:18

Claimant-Respondent seeks the upholding of the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the Yamhill County Circuit Court's finding that civil forfeiture in Oregon constitutes criminal punishment for the purposes of Double Jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment due to its punitive nature.

Gervin v. Florence et. al.

Submitted by Jane Clayton on Wed, 10/04/2023 - 10:30

Gervin v. Florence et. al. addresses the case of DeShawn Gervin, whose probation was improperly revoked for violating a probation condition that the judge did not impose. Mr. Gervin spent 104 days in jail because of this error, and this brief supports the argument that Mr. Gervin should be able to sue the probation officer for malicious prosecution. Our brief argues that the 4th Amendment protects people against having to spend time in jail for wrongful probation revocations.