Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In a loan-and-supply contract, plaintiff agreed to provide defendant with a $150,000 loan that would be gradually forgiven over five years as defendant purchased specified quantities of motor-oil products from plaintiff. The typewritten contract included a handwritten note stating that the "Agreement will terminate after 225,000 gallons and 225,000 filters of Exxon/Mobil is purchased or 60 months, whichever comes first." Defendant stopped buying products from plaintiff after only two years, having purchased only 55,296 gallons and 61,551 filters. The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiff. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the handwritten provision relieved plaintiff of any liability after 60 months (after July 1, 2008) regardless of the amount of product it purchased.

A 1993 Ford Explorer, struck by another car near the left rear wheel, rolled over. Plaintiffs, driver and passenger, were injured. At the close of discovery in their case against the manufacturer, plaintiffs had not designated an expert on the subject of the vehicle's design. The magistrate judge concluded that the suit could not proceed without expert testimony and granted summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Consumer expectations are just one factor in the inquiry whether a product is unreasonably dangerous. A jury unassisted by expert testimony would have to rely on speculation. The record did not show whether the vehicles are unduly (or unexpectedly) dangerous, based on: under what circumstances they roll over; under what circumstances consumers expect them to do so; whether it would be possible to reduce the rollover rate; and whether a different and safer design would have averted this particular accident.

The inmate asked for a vegan diet, telling the chaplain that he adheres to the Moorish Science Temple. The chaplain rejected the request, observing that the tenets of Moorish Science require a non-pork diet, which can include dairy products and some meat and fish. The district court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the inmate's action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but granted the motion with respect to claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.2000cc to 2000cc–5. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. The inmate is no longer at the prison, so damages would be the only potential relief. Money damages are not available in suits against states under RLUIPA and suits against state employees in their official capacity are treated as suits against the states. RLUIPA does not authorize any kind of relief against public employees in their private capacities. The warden was entitled to summary judgment under section 1983, which does not provide for "supervisory liability." To decide whether the chaplain has qualified immunity, the district judge must determine whether he reasonably attempted to determine whether the inmate had a sincere belief that his religion requires a vegan diet.

A part-time school custodian, suffering mental disability, applied for full-time positions and was rejected. His performance had been evaluated as unsatisfactory. He filed a charge with the EEOC. A few months later the employer again evaluated his performance and fired him. In a suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The employee did not establish the elements of a valid discrimination and retaliation claim under the ADA: that he was meeting his employer' legitimate employment expectations, and was performing his job satisfactorily.

Defendant flew a propeller plane loaded with more than 150 pounds of marijuana from California to Wisconsin; was caught; pled guilty to violating 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); and was sentenced to 65 months' imprisonment, 3 years' supervised release, and forfeiture (21 U.S.C. 853) of the plane, a car, and some other items. Neither defendant nor his lawyers filed a timely notice of appeal. Two months after the conviction and sentence became final, defendant, acting pro se, filed a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that counsel abandoned him and that a reasonably diligent prisoner would not have known that counsel had failed to file an appeal or, alternatively, that the limitations period did not start under 2255(f)(2), which governs the period for motions whose filing is impeded by the government. The district court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit remanded for further factual development, stating that the allegations were not incredible.

Before his death, the orthodontist designated his sons as beneficiaries of a pension plan he had established for his business. Because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. The Plan moved for summary judgment.guarantees surviving spouses certain benefits, his wife signed a written consent form. After her husband died, wife claimed her consent was invalid because it was not witnessed, as required by ERISA. The pension plan denied her claim for benefits. The district court upheld that decision, invoking the substantial-compliance doctrine. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, but held that the substantial-compliance doctrine did not apply because ERISA is not silent on the issue of witnessing. The plan was within its discretion to deny the claim. Although no witness signed the consent form as a witness, it is clear that the orthodontist, then the plan representative, witnessed his wife's written consent to the waiver, as required by ERISA.

Plaintiff, publisher of a newsletter about the Wisconsin state prison system, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after prison officials concluded that the March 2007 edition posed an unacceptable risk to inmate rehabilitation and prison security and refused to distribute the issue to inmates. The district court concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and entered summary judgment in their favors. A second case was filed by a prisoner, against DOC employees, after they confiscated medical records and legal documents regarding other inmates, as well as copies of an article he published in the newsletter. The district court dismissed the claims on their merits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed both decisions. The publisher did not establish that confiscation of the newsletter was not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. DOC's policy, restricting prisoners' access to third-party mail did not violate the inmate's First Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs, employed by the Department of Homeland Security, filed a six-count employment discrimination suit in 2007. After the district court granted a motion to dismiss two counts, DHS failed to answer the complaint, apparently due to an oversight. In 2009, court granted plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, (FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)). One of the plaintiffs was facing criminal charges and they wanted to wait for the resolution of that case. Nine months later, after expiration of the limitations period, plaintiffs moved to reinstate the case under FRCP 60(b). The court denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. A case dismissed under Rule 41(a) is generally treated as if it had never been filed. The district court retained jurisdiction, but did not abuse its discretion in denying the extraordinary relief of reinstatement simply because plaintiffs made a mistake.

Defendant was convicted of possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court properly refused to dismiss evidence related to drugs found in defendant's truck; police had probable cause to search the truck, which defendant had pulled into an informant's driveway to make a scheduled delivery. Defendant had ample opportunity to expose the informant's motives and biases on the stand. The district court did not abuse its discretion by forbidding the defense to inquire into salacious details about her personal life.

Petitioner, imprisoned in Wisconsin for a term of 60 years following a 1994 conviction for sexual assault and attempted homicide, sought a writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. 2254). The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The case involved police misconduct in "doctoring" the crime scene to conceal evidence of prostitution, by withholding semen-stained sheets and towels from the massage parlor. The items were later tested and did not disclose petitioner's DNA. The court stated that the evidence was irrelevant, in that it could only be used to impeach the victim, given the other evidence and petitioner's own admissions. Rejecting a "Brady" claim concerning petitioner's gun, the court noted that nothing suggests that defense team was unaware of the gun, the state's possession of it, or the prosecution's theory of its role in the crime, or that the defense unsuccessfully requested access.