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

Welch called 911. A Wishard ambulance arrived. Welch was 34 weeks pregnant. Paramedics ascertained that her water broke and she had a prolapsed umbilical cord. After consulting with her obstetrician’s office, paramedics contacted the Beech Grove emergency room and transported her there. Beech Grove did not have an obstetrics facility. Rather than delivering the baby, the physician sent Welch in the Wishard ambulance to another hospital, where the baby was delivered by Caesarean section. He had suffered hypoxia resulting in severe brain damage. Plaintiffs alleged that Wishard violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395dd. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the situation did not fit the definition of “come to the emergency room:” that an individual in an ambulance owned and operated by the hospital is deemed to have come to the emergency room unless the ambulance is operated under communitywide emergency medical service protocols that direct it to transport the individual to a hospital other than the owner. The Wishard ambulance was operating under EMS protocols when it transported the plaintiffs. Although the definition was adopted after the incident, it was merely a clarification. View "Beller v. Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty. IN" on Justia Law

After he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Elliott was sentenced as an armed career criminal based on the district court’s finding that a series of three robberies he perpetrated in a five-day period when he was 18 years old were “committed on occasions different from one another,” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). With the ACCA enhancement, the maximum term was 15 years; without it the maximum term would have been 10 years. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Elliot had a right to have a jury, rather than the judge, assess the nature of his prior crimes. The court noted that the burglaries at issue occurred on different days and involved different residences and victims. View "United States v. Elliott" on Justia Law

Enviro-Chem conducted waste-handling and disposal operations at three sites north of Zionsville, Indiana, until it ceased operations in 1982, leaving considerable amounts of pollutants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency undertook cleanup and identified potentially responsible parties (PRPs), including former owners, their corporate entities, and their insurers. A trust was established to fund cleanup and trustees sued to recover cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a) (CERCLA), the Indiana Environmental Legal Actions Statute (ELA), and more. Work continues at the site at issue. The district court dismissed, in part, on limitations grounds, construing the complaint as seeking contribution. The Seventh Circuit reversed dismissal of three counts, holding that claims to recover costs incurred pursuant to the 2002 Administrative Order by Consent between the EPA and PRPs and that related claims, including the ELA claim, were not moot. The court upheld denial of an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on preclusion grounds. View "Bernstein v. Bankert" on Justia Law

Defendant worked as an assistant branch manager and pled guilty to embezzlement, 18 U.S.C. 656 after stealing more than $40,000 from the bank by manipulating the electronic security system. He was arrested in the Dominican Republic. The district court imposed a two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of trust (U.S.S.G. 3B1.3) and imposed a sentence of six months in prison, followed by two years of supervision with six months of home confinement. The Seventh Circuit rejected challenges to the sentence. View "United States v. Wasilewski" on Justia Law

Moyaho, a Mexican citizen, first entered the U.S. in 1995, “without inspection.” Since then, he has lived and worked in the U.S., paid taxes, and, with his wife, raised three children, each born in the U.S. In 2005, DHS instituted removal proceedings. -Moyaho admitted his unlawful status, but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b), which provides for cancellation if the alien has been continuously present for 10 years; displays good moral character; has not been convicted of specified offenses; and removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. The application was denied on the ground that Moyaho did not demonstrate that his children would suffer qualifying hardship. The Board affirmed. He brought a number of motions, which were denied. The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over most of Moyaho’s claims and that the Board did not err in denying his other motions. View "Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, age 46, pleaded guilty to four counts of producing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). He photographed his repeated sexual assaults on a girl who was a friend of his daughters. He obtained additional images by threatening to kill her unless she photographed herself in sexually explicit poses and emailed him the images. The abuses began when she was 11 years old and continued until she was 14. Because his total offense level was 43, his guidelines sentence for each count was life. The judge could not impose that sentence because the statutory maximum for each count was 30 years, 18 U.S.C. 2251(e). The judge imposed the 30-year maximum on one count and concurrent sentences of 20 years on each remaining count, but ordered that the 20-year sentences be served consecutively to the 30-year sentence, making the total sentence 50 years. The guidelines permit the judge to sentence consecutively when necessary to bring the total sentence into the guidelines range, even though the sentence would exceed the statutory maximum for any count, U.S.S.G. 5G1.2(d). Defendant’s lawyer filed an Anders motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. The Seventh Circuit granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. Craig" on Justia Law

In 1995 Chicago administered a civil-service examination for the fire department and initially hired those with scores of 89 to 100. From 2002-2006 it hired from the group who had scored 65 to 88. Plaintiffs contend that drawing a line at 89 had an unjustified disparate effect on black applicants, violating Title VII. Following a 2000 remand, in 2006 the district court held that the city had not proved justification. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that the charge had been filed after the limitations period expired. In 2010, the Supreme Court, reversed, holding that a new claim accrued with each use of the list to hire. The district court held that 111 class members must be hired; others receive damages. Prospective intervenors have worked as firefighters since 2005. Each contends that he thought that he would receive extra seniority, pension credits, or back pay in this litigation and that he is entitled to intervene, after judgment, because he did not know that class counsel had decided not to seek relief for persons hired from the 65-88 pool. The district judge found their motion untimely. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Lewis v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

On December 7, 2009, Burd pleaded guilty in Illinois state court to attempted burglary. He had 30 days to withdraw the plea. For the first 29 days of this period, he was held at prison facilities that had no library resources. On the thirtieth day, he was transferred and immediately asked to use the library. Officials told him the library was closed. Burd missed the filing deadline, but continued to seek access to the law library. He filled out request slips, but each time he was denied access because the library was closed. When he explained to Sessler, the prison educational administrator, that he wanted to research withdrawing his plea or an appeal of his sentence, she told him that any such action would be untimely and denied him access to the library. Burd also requested that a fellow inmate be permitted to assist him with his motion. He never received a response. Burd did not seek to set aside his conviction through federal or state habeas corpus before filing under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed rejection of his request for damages as for failure to seek collateral relief.View "Burd v. Sessler" on Justia Law

Woolley was charged in Illinois state court with murder, armed violence, armed robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, arising out the fatal shootings of two victims in 1995. After initially confessing, he later recanted, claiming he had falsely implicated himself in order to protect his wife, Marcia, who committed the murders out of jealousy toward one of the victims. The jury convicted him on all counts. In state post-conviction procedures, Woolley produced an expert who pointed out flaws in expert evidence introduced at trial. After obtaining no relief and exhausting review in state court, Martin filed a federal habeas corpus petition (28 U.S.C. 2254), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Woolley’s counsel was ineffective, remaining nearly passive in the face of damning, impeachable testimony from the crime scene investigator, that effectively hollowed out the core of his client’s defense, but Woolley was not prejudiced by the error. View "Woolley v. Gaetz" on Justia Law

Escobedo became suicidal and ingested cocaine. He dialed 911 and told the operator he had taken cocaine, had a gun to his head, and wanted to kill himself. An emergency response team was dispatched to negotiate with Escobedo and to try to get him to put down his weapon and leave his apartment voluntarily. Negotiations were unsuccessful and the police opted to deploy a tactical response to remove Escobedo, as they thought he presented a danger to the community around him. After deploying two volleys of tear gas into Escobedo’s seventh-floor apartment, a team of six officers wearing gas masks and other protective equipment broke into the apartment. The officers found him in his closet with a gun to his head. The officers ordered him to put down the weapon, but Escobedo did not comply and was shot by two officers. Escobedo’s Estate brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 excessive force claim against the police and the City of Fort Wayne. The district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Estate of Escobedo v. Martin" on Justia Law