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

A Wisconsin inmate checked out two books from the prison library, and purchased, with the prison’s permission, a copy of To Die for the People: The Writings of Huey P. Newton (the founder of the Black Panthers). Plaintiff copied on a sheet of paper the Panthers’ “Ten-Point Program,” which appears in all three books. He put the sheet in the footlocker in his cell. A guard discovered the sheet in a random search of the cell. Plaintiff was found guilty, in a prison disciplinary proceeding, of possession of “gang literature” in violation of Wis. Admin. Code DOC 303.20(3). He was given 90 days of confinement in segregation. The prison also destroyed the sheet of paper on which he’d copied the Ten-Point Program. The district court rejected his free speech and due process claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to the free speech claim, but vacated with respect to due process. “Freedom of speech is not absolute, and the curtailment challenged in this case is slight and the justification adequate, though not ample.” The court made no findings that would enable an inference that plaintiff’s 90-day sentence to segregation was, or was not, a deprivation of liberty. View "Toston v. Thurmer" on Justia Law

After being rejected for a mortgage because Hall had a bankruptcy and their joint income was too low, Phillips and Hall applied with Bowling, a mortgage broker, under the “stated income loan program.” Bowling prepared an application that omitted Hall’s name, attributed their combined income to Phillips, doubled that income, and falsely claimed that Phillips was a manager. Phillips signed the application and employment verification form. Fremont extended credit. They could not make the payments; the lender foreclosed. Bowling repeated this process often. He pleaded guilty to bank fraud and, to lower his sentence, assisted in prosecution of his clients. Phillips and Hall were convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1014. The district court prohibited them from eliciting testimony that Bowling assured them that the loan program was lawful and from arguing mistake of fact when in signing the application and employment verification. They argued that they were hindered in showing the lack of intent for a specific-intent crime. The district judge concluded that they sought to argue mistake of law. Jury instructions required acquittal absent a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants knew that the statements were false; genuine mistake of fact would have led to acquittal.. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Marinov, a citizen of Bulgaria, entered the U.S. in 2005 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor and remained beyond the date authorized. He applied for asylum. He was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). An attorney entered an appearance on Marinov’s behalf, conceded removability, and obtained transfer of venue. In December 2009, the immigration court served notice to Marinov’s attorney at the address provided on his appearance form, advising that a hearing was set for August 3, 2010. The attorney attended the hearing; Marinov did not. The IJ ordered removal in absentia. On September 24, Marinov, represented by new counsel, filed a motion to reopen based on a lack of notice, exceptional circumstances, and ineffective assistance of former counsel. He alleged that former counsel made misrepresentations to the IJ and included a copy of an attorney disciplinary complaint. The IJ denied Marinov’s motion, deciding that he received proper notice and had not shown that former counsel was informed of the allegations or afforded an opportunity to respond. The BIA rejected the argument that the ARDC complaint satisfied this requirement, concluding that the bar complaint and notice to counsel were two separate requirements. The Seventh Circuit denied review. View "Marinov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Rivas, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 1970 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2009, DHS charged Rivas with removability because of a 1980 conviction for statutory rape. At his hearing Rivas argued that the conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony and that he was not removable. The IJ rejected the argument and a subsequent motion to reopen. In 2010 Rivas was removed to Mexico. Two months later Rivas filed a petition for habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the claim barred by 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), which prevents courts from hearing challenges to the execution of removal orders, and also that Rivas was not “in custody” as required under 28 U.S.C. 2241(c). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Rivas’s situation is sympathetic, but consideration was precluded by multiple jurisdictional bars. View "Rivas-Melendrez v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Aschermann suffers from degenerating discs and spondylolisthesis and had lumbar fusion operations in 2002 and 2004. Until 2003 she worked as a sales representative. Back pain left her unable to perform its duties. Between 2003 and 2009 she received disability payments under the employer’s disability plan, a welfare-benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The policy provides that after the first two years of benefits, the question becomes whether the recipient can perform any job in the economy as a whole. Lumbermens stopped paying disability benefits to Aschermann in fall 2009, concluding that she could do sedentary work. The district court held that the decision to end her disability benefits was not arbitrary. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Aschermann does not deny that her education B.S. in psychology and master’s degree in social work and experience suit her for many desk-bound positions, but claimed inability to work more than four hours a day. The insurer gave notice complying with ERISA, (29 U.S.C. §1133(1), that it wanted new diagnostic test results and other recent information; she was given a “reasonable opportunity” to supplement the file and receive a “full and fair review.” View "Aschermann v. Aetna Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Winforge claimed that defendants breached a hotel development agreement between the parties, causing delay and costs that caused Winforge to default on the separate construction loan agreement between the parties. Defendants cross-claimed that Winforge breached the development agreement. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants and found that the parties had never entered into a final, enforceable contract. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Even a signed writing is not a contract if there is no mutual assent or “distinct intention common to both;” the parties continued to exchange new drafts of the Scope of Work even after they had signed the Agreement. To the extent that defendants incurred any obligations, their failure to perform was not a breach because that failure was due to Winforge’s deficient performance of Winforge’s duties. View "Winforge, Inc. v. Coachmen Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Industrial grease, propelled in a jet with enough energy to penetrate and pass through the human body like a bullet, hit and disabled a worker at a steel rolling mill. At trial the jury found that the accident was caused by a design defect in a heavy industrial product designed and manufactured by Xtek and installed in the mill. That equipment contained an internal spring that could exert over 10,000 pounds of force. The jury accepted the theory of plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr. Hutter, that the spring was the culprit mechanism behind the accident and that an alternative design of a thrust plate in the equipment would have prevented the disabling accident. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion in denying Daubert motion that sought to bar Dr. Hutter from offering his expert opinions, which were essential to the plaintiffs’ case. The purpose of the Daubert inquiry is to scrutinize proposed expert witness testimony to determine if it has “the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field” so as to be deemed reliable enough to present to a jury. View "Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc." on Justia Law

Travelers sought a declaratory judgment that they had no duty to defend their insured, Rogan Shoes, in an Illinois state court class action for violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681c(g), which prohibits businesses from including on sales receipts the expiration date or more than the last five digits of the purchaser’s credit or debit card and authorizes damages of up to $1,000 per unlawful receipt. The suit sought statutory damages of $387 million. Rogan settled for $16 million; the settlement specified that the judgment would be satisfied only through proceeds from Travelers’ policies, with the exception of $50,000 to cover legal costs. Rogan assigned its claims and rights to payments under the policies. The state court approved the settlement. A state court citation to discover assets was served on Travelers’ agent. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action on the ground that parallel state proceedings were pending. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the case did not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), because Rogan had assigned its interests in its policies to class members, none of whom individually claim a share of more than $75,000. View "Travelers Prop. Cas. & Travelers Indem. Co. v. Good" on Justia Law

While officers were following a vehicle in which Jones was riding as a passenger, Jones threw a handgun out the window. The driver pulled over and officers obtained consent to search from both Jones and the driver. Jones had an empty handgun holster around his waist and 18 grams of marijuana in his shoe. The officers then retraced their route and retrieved the handgun from a driveway a few blocks away. Jones admitted the gun was his. He was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon and was sentenced as an armed career criminal based in part on a prior Illinois conviction for vehicular fleeing, which the judge counted as a third violent felony under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), triggering a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life. The judge sentenced Jones to 184 months, just above the mandatory minimum. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a vagueness challenge to the residual clause. The court noted that a majority of the Supreme Court has rejected the argument, albeit only in response to dissents, not in the more formal sense of deciding an explicit void-for-vagueness challenge. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

An investigator downloaded child pornography videos from an internet protocol address registered to Miller and searched Miller’s home. Miller told agents that they might find child pornography. The search yielded computers and an unconnected hard drive containing multiple video files and images of child pornography. Miller’s wife stated that she had confronted Miller about the pornography on his computer, that his six-year-old granddaughter had alleged that Miller had watched her get undressed and inappropriately touched her, and that Miller’s teenage stepdaughter claimed that Miller “regularly” walked in on her while she showered. Miller voluntarily admitted that he had downloaded child pornography. Charged with distributing, receiving, and possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(1), (b)(1); 2252(a)(2); 2252(a)(4), Miller testified that he did not “seek out images of naked children.” The court allowed questions about allegations by his granddaughter and stepdaughter, but prohibited extrinsic evidence concerning the allegations and instructed the jury that the evidence was relevant only to questions of intent, knowledge, and lack of mistake. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions. While it was error for the court to admit the evidence without first weighing probative value against risk of unfair prejudice, the error was harmless because evidence of guilt was overwhelming. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law