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

Clark’s trucking business was hired to perform hauling services on a state‐ and federally funded highway project in Missouri. Because federal funds were involved, Clark’s contract with the project’s general contractor required that he pay his truck drivers the federal prevailing wage pursuant to the Davis‐Bacon Act (then $35.45/hour). Clark did not do so, but individually contracted with his drivers for roughly $15/hour instead. Throughout the project, Clark submitted weekly payroll certifications in which he falsely attested to paying his workers $35.45/hour. After his work concluded, he submitted an affidavit to the Missouri Department of Transportation, certifying compliance with Missouri state law and its state wage order. Based on these attestations, the government charged Clark with 10 counts of making false statements,18 U.S.C. 1001. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions on nine counts, rejecting An argument that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that his false statements were material to the federal government. The court agreed that the government failed to prove that his affidavit to MODOT had a natural capability of influencing the federal government and reversed conviction on Count 10. View "United States v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jason Mucha filed suit against two Milwaukee police officers alleging they detained him without a warrant or other justification, thereby violating his Constitutional rights. Plaintiff himself was a Milwaukee police officer: he had been on leave as a result of work-related stress. A psychiatrist that examined plaintiff stated that "Jason Mucha is, in a not very veiled manner, threatening to shoot people in police command. He has a considerable stash of firearms. Hearing this, I cannot send him back to work. This is a public safety issue." The police department received the report shortly before a "SWAT" team was dispatched to plaintiff's home. Plaintiff told officers that he had "dreams" or "thoughts of suicide and hurting himself." Officers decided to detain plaintiff; the record was unclear whether the officers decided to detain plaintiff on their own accord, or if they were under orders. Plaintiff was handcuffed and taken to a mental health facility. Plaintiff was released three days later. Plaintiff argued that the officers did not have probable cause to believe he was mentally ill or posed a danger to himself or others. The issue this case presented for the Seventh Circuit's review centered on whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. The Seventh Circuit did not understand the trial judge's determinations that plaintiff was acting "rationally" when police interviewed him prior to taking him to the mental health facility. As such, the Court overruled the trial court's decision to deny the officers immunity, reversed and remanded the case for dismissal against the officer-defendants. View "Mucha v. Jackson" on Justia Law

After an argument with his wife on their wedding anniversary, Jerome Weinmann went to his garage, drank half a bottle of vodka, and put the barrel of a shotgun in his mouth. He was unable to pull the trigger. Susan Weinmann called 911 for help. The officer who responded, Deputy McClone, shot Jerome four times. Jerome survived and sued McClone under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for using unconstitutionally excessive force. McClone invoked qualified immunity, but the district court refused to grant summary judgment in his favor on that basis. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that McClone had decided to kick in the door within three minutes of arriving and did not attempt to communicate with Jerome before entering, so he did not have a reasonable belief that Jerome posed a threat. View "Weinmann v. McClone" on Justia Law

After being convicted of conspiracy to smuggle illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border, Macias created a bus company to transport legal Mexican immigrants. He was paid for moving money from the U.S. to Mexico. He claims that he did not know that the money consisted of proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. Macias was convicted of conspiring to distribute cocaine and of conducting an unlicensed money-transmitting business. The Seventh Circuit reversed the conspiracy conviction and remanded. The court erred in giving the “ostrich” instruction: “You may find that the defendant acted knowingly if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a strong suspicion that the money … was the proceeds of narcotics trafficking and that he deliberately avoided the truth. You may not find that the defendant acted knowingly if he was merely mistaken or careless in not discovering the truth, or if he failed to make an effort to discover the truth.” An ostrich instruction should not be given unless there is evidence that the defendant engaged in behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as intended to shield him from confirmation that he was involved in criminal activity. Macias’s responsibilities in facilitating the transmission of money did not require him to know how the money was obtained. Having no need or duty to know, he was not acting unnaturally in failing to inquire. View "United States v. Macias" on Justia Law

Milwaukee Officer Shull reviewed evidence that McMillian was involved in a 2007 double homicide and went to McMillian’s home to arrest him. Officers arrived at McMillian’s house without a warrant. Shull knocked and announced that he was a police officer. When McMillan came to the door, Shull arrested him. Tactical officers then conducted a protective sweep of the house and observed a rifle case a bedroom. Shull noticed that McMillian was barefoot and asked if he wanted shoes. Shull took his response as a request by McMillian to get his flip flops from the back bedroom. Shull bent to pick up the shoes and saw gun cases between the bed and the nightstand. Based on an inaccurate affidavit that said that an assault rifle had been observed during the protective sweep and described an informant’s statement that McMillian had confessed his involvement in 2007 homicides, a state judge issued a search warrant. The address on the warrant was corrected without the officer being placed under oath. McMillian was also indicted on sex trafficking charges. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of his motion to suppress and his conviction of possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), finding that the warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. McMillian" on Justia Law

Humphrey sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act on behalf of her daughter Teniscia, alleging that medical malpractice during Teniscia’s 2008 birth left her permanently disabled. Teniscia’s father, Lee, participated in the litigation, but did not ask to be joined as a party. Humphrey and Lee are not married; Teniscia lives with Humphrey, but both are Teniscia’s legal custodians. The case was settled for $13 million, used to buy an annuity to provide care over the course of Teniscia’s life. Porter, who represents Lee, demanded a share of the 25% contingent fee that had been negotiated between Humphrey and her lawyer, who opposed this request, arguing that Lee was not a party and that Porter had not performed any of the legal work that led to the settlement. After the settlement Lee moved to file an amended complaint naming himself as a plaintiff. The district court denied Lee’s motion, stating that Lee not only had approved the settlement but also had not filed an administrative claim, as the FTCA requires. Lee then moved to intervene. The court denied that motion as untimely. Porter unsuccessfully sought fees notwithstanding Lee’s non-party status. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court could not have allowed intervention even on a timely motion. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

In a securities-fraud class action, plaintiffs won a verdict of $2.46 billion, apparently one of the largest to date, against Household International and three of its top executives. The suit was based on a dramatic increase (and subsequent collapse) in the price of Household’s stock that was driven by predatory lending practices and creative accounting to mask delinquencies. The Seventh Circuit ordered a new trial on two issues: whether plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation and instructional error concerning what it means to “make” a false statement in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony did not adequately address whether firm-specific, nonfraud factors contributed to the collapse in Household’s stock price during the relevant time period. View "Glickenhaus & Co. v. Household Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

Childress claims that, upon completion of a prison‐sponsored reentry program at the Big Muddy River Correctional Center in Illinois, the instructor delivered a computer disk containing Childress’s resume to the property officer, who placed it in Childress’s property box. Childress later was discharged on mandatory supervised release, with a condition that he could not possess any computer‐related material. Following his release, a routine inspection of his living quarters revealed the envelope containing the computer disk. His release was revoked. After serving his extended sentence, Childress, acting pro se, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed following review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915A. On reconsideration, the court determined that Childress was not a prisoner within the meaning of the PLRA but that his action should be dismissed on in forma pauperis review (28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding dismissal premature. The complaint set forth sufficient facts to proceed against at least one defendant and Childress should have been granted the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure deficiencies in the remainder of his claims. The court failed to consider adequately Childress’s request to recruit counsel. View "Childress v. Walker" on Justia Law

Griffin and Allison were charged with federal drug offenses arising from an investigation of drug trafficking by the Traveling Vice Lords street gang which operated on Chicago’s West Side. Griffin, Allison and four co-defendants were part of the operation that sold heroin at two locations. Allison and Griffin each pled guilty to conspiring between June 2008 and November 2010 to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 1 kilogram or more of heroin. Allison was sentenced to a prison term of 288 months. Griffin received a sentence of 210 months. The government conceded and the Seventh Circuit agreed that the district court committed reversible error at each sentencing by imposing discretionary supervised release conditions without explaining why the conditions for each defendant were reasonably related to the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The Seventh Circuit rejected an argument that due process was compromised when the sentencing judge pronounced Allison’s sentence, then conferred with a probation officer and revised the prison term. The judge simply misspoke (saying 240 months when he meant 24 years, which equals 288 months) but caught himself. The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s calculation of drug quantity. View "United States v. Allison" on Justia Law

After years of working as a locomotive engineer, and more briefly as a limousine driver, Duncan applied for a disability annuity (Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1)(v)) in 2010. His application alleged constant back pain stemming from a 2003 workplace injury in which he slipped on ice, hit his head, and injured his back. The Railroad Retirement Board denied his application and denied it again upon reconsideration in 2011. A hearing officer denied Duncan’s application in 2012. In 2013, a three-member board affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Duncan retains the capacity to perform a reduced range of work. View "Duncan v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd." on Justia Law