Younger doctrine didn\u2019t apply when plaintiff\u2019s criminal case was over. Harris v. Trent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42416 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, assuming the factual disputes in Franke’s favor, the relevant question is whether it was clearly established in March 2022 that a police officer violates a person’s rights during an investigatory detention by using advanced pain compliance techniques\u2014here a half nelson and painfully twisting a wrist with enough force to cause an injury that required surgery\u2014on a handcuffed individual not resisting arrest. Binding caselaw shows that it was.\u201d Franke v. Janes, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 6031 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Omissions from the affidavit for arrest did not materially undermine the probable cause, thus defeating a malicious prosecution action. L.M. v. Graham, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5849 (4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Younger doctrine didn\u2019t apply when plaintiff\u2019s criminal case was over. Harris v. Trent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42416 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2026). \u201cHere, assuming the factual disputes in Franke’s favor, the relevant question is whether it was clearly established … Continue reading