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

Several people interrogated by the infamous Jon Burge and other officers he trained or influenced sought damages under 42 U.S.C.1983. Between 1972 and 1991, while employed by Chicago’s police force, Burge regularly tortured people to extract statements. After the statute of limitations for prosecuting Burge about that misconduct expired, he was convicted of lying about his practices. The last interrogation about which any of the five plaintiffs complains occurred in 2004, and the statute of limitations for section 1983 actions in Illinois is two years. The last adverse event that might have been influenced by the interrogations was Freeman’s conviction in 2009, more than two years before the suit was filed and more than three years before Freeman joined the suit. The others are in prison following convictions for serious crimes; each conviction is supported by evidence independent of confessions induced by misconduct during interrogation. The district court dismissed all claims as barred by the statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plaintiffs waited on the sidelines hoping that the acts of others would tarnish Burge’s reputation and make a suit easier to win. That is not the sort of diligence required to establish equitable tolling. View "Estate of Jones v. Burge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former Chicago police officer, is black, and claimed racially motivated harassment, and retaliation for complaining about the harassment, in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act. While that suit was pending, he was fired. He claims retaliation for the internal complaints about harassment that he had made before he filed suit. Rather than amend his state court complaint to add a charge concerning his firing, he filed a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district judge stayed the federal suit while the state suit was pending. Brown dismissed the state case without prejudice. The district judge dismissed one count, alleging state claims, for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and the other claims, retaliation and racial discrimination, on the merits, as barred by res judicata. The Seventh Circuit modified to place dismissal of the first claim on the district court’s supplemental state-law jurisdiction, acknowledging that it may be so similar to the state law claims as to merit dismissal, but reversed with respect to the dismissal of the due process claim in that count. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "Brown v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Smith sued Greystone, a debt collector, alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692–92p, and seeking statutory damages and compensatory damages for emotional distress. The district judge certified it as a class action, but the suit was transferred and the new judge decertified the class. Another judge dismissed, ruling that it had been moot since November 2009, when Greystone offered Smith $1,500 plus costs and attorneys’ fees. The Seventh Circuit vacated. A controversy exists when the plaintiff wants more, or different, relief than the defendant is willing to provide. The district judge decided that Smith’s compensatory damages could not exceed $500, but, while an excessive demand may lead to sanctions for frivolous litigation, it does not diminish the court’s jurisdiction. A court must resolve the merits unless the defendant satisfies the plaintiff’s demand. An offer that the defendant or the judge believes sufficient, but which does not satisfy the plaintiff’s demand, does not justify dismissal. View "Smith v. Greystone Alliance LLC" on Justia Law

FFRF, a Wisconsin-based organization of atheists and agnostics, gives its co-presidents housing allowances. They paid income tax on that portion of their salaries. Neither sought to exclude this income on their tax returns and neither has claimed a refund. FFRF and the co-presidents challenged the parsonage exemption, 26 U.S.C. 107, which allows a minister to receive tax-free housing from his church, whether by giving the minister access to a church-owned residence or by giving the minister an allowance to obtain housing. Plaintiffs conceded that they lacked standing to challenge section 107(1), covering in-kind housing, but argued that they had standing to challenge section 107(2), which applies to rental allowances. The district court agreed and held that the subsection is an unconstitutional establishment of religion under the First Amendment. The Seventh Circuit vacated with instructions to dismiss. A person suffers no judicially cognizable injury merely because others receive a tax benefit that is conditioned on allegedly unconstitutional criteria, even if that person is otherwise “similarly situated” to those who receive the benefit. Only a person that has been denied such a benefit can be deemed to have suffered a cognizable injury. The plaintiffs were not denied the parsonage exemption. View "Freedom From Religion Found., Inc. v. Lew" on Justia Law

Doe settled his sexual abuse claims against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee for $80,000 after participating in a voluntary mediation program. He later filed a claim against the Archdiocese in its bankruptcy proceedings for the same sexual abuse. Doe responded to the Archdiocese’s motion for summary judgment by contending that his settlement was fraudulently induced. The argument depends upon statements made during the mediation, but Wisconsin law prohibits the admission in judicial proceedings of nearly all communications made during mediation. Doe argued that an exception applies here because the later action is “distinct from the dispute whose settlement is attempted through mediation,” Wis. Stat. 904.085(4)(e). The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Archdiocese. Doe’s bankruptcy claim is not distinct from the dispute settled in mediation. The issue in both proceedings, which involved the same parties, is the Archdiocese’s responsibility for the sexual abuse Doe suffered. Doe sought damages in both the mediation and bankruptcy for the same sexual abuse; he did not seek separate or additional damages for the alleged fraudulent inducement. View "Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee" on Justia Law

In 2005 Greene and his wife had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and obtained a discharge from all their debts except federal student loan debt of $207,000. As part of the bankruptcy case they sought an order that the Department of Education cancel their debt on the ground that having to repay it would inflict undue hardship. The Greenes claimed that the statute of limitations prohibited collection of their loans, penalties and interest on the loans were caused by the DOE’s negligence, and the loans should be discharged as reparations for slavery and discrimination.” The Seventh Circuit rejected the undue hardship defense on the ground that “the Greenes initiated this case and the DOE has not counterclaimed or sought any judgment … there is no actual controversy.” In 2010 the Department began to garnish Greene’s wages and he sought an injunction. The DOE counterclaimed. The district court ordered Greene to pay the debt. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that DOE’s counterclaim was not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or failure to make a compulsory counterclaim in the bankruptcy proceeding.View "Greene v. U.S. Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

Zuppardi slipped and fell on the floor of a Wal-Mart store. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, finding that Wal-Mart had not caused the puddle and did not have actual or constructive notice of the puddle before Zuppardi’s fall, and denying Zuppardi’s motion to strike Wal-Mart’s reply for submitting a declaration in bad faith and violating a district court local rule. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The declaration was not a bad faith filing and the district court was within its discretion in deeming certain facts admitted and in determining that the local rule did not prevent Wal-Mart from replying in the manner it did.View "Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Kolbusz owns and operates the Illinois Center for Dermatology and Skin Cancer and was a participating Medicare provider from 1993 until December 2012, receiving payment directly from Medicare. In October 2012 he was indicted for Medicare fraud. As a consequence, the Department of Health and Human Services imposed fraud prevention procedures on the practice, including payment suspension, resulting in his ultimate withdrawal from the Medicare program. In 2013, Kolbusz filed suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services and her contractors, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal question); the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395; and 28 U.S.C. 1361 (mandamus) to compel review of reimbursement claims he had submitted. The district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Kolbusz’s failure to exhaust Medicare’s administrative appeals process precludes subject-matter jurisdiction of his mandamus action.View "Ctr for Dermatology & Skin Cancer, Ltd. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

In 2009 the doctor was hired by a small rural Wisconsin critical access hospital, as the director of its emergency room. Fired just months after being hired, he sued the hospital in under Title VII, claiming that the hospital had discriminated against him because of his Indian ethnicity. He alleged that a hospital employee said to him “you must be that Middle Eastern guy whom they hired as ER director” and accused him of taking her job, spat at him, and told him he belonged to a terrorist class of people and was a danger to the hospital. Hospital personnel complained to the plaintiff’s superior that he was incompetent—that he had poor patient skills, behaved unprofessionally, misdiagnosed patient ailments, and couldn’t get along with staff. His superior urged him to resign after he had worked only 12 shifts. After delays because the plaintiff initially acted pro se, and filings that were inadequate or nonresponsive, the judge dismissed the case for failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that “the pratfalls of a party’s lawyer are imputed to the party” and that plaintiff offered no excuse for missing the deadline.View "Sheikh v. Grant Reg'l Health Ctr." on Justia Law

Lodholtz, injured in 2011 while working at a Pulliam plant in Indiana, filed suit against Pulliam in state court. Pulliam asked Granite State, its insurer, to defend and indemnify. Granite State declined, believing that Pulliam was not liable because Lodholtz could claim workers’ compensation. Lodholtz argued that he was employed by another firm although he was injured on Pulliam’s premises and obtained default judgment for $4 million. Pulliam assigned him its rights against Granite State, which had unsuccessfully moved to intervene in Lodholtz’s suit, then sought a federal declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify. Meanwhile, the Indiana court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that Granite State had sought leave to intervene under a reservation of rights. Indiana courts forbid the insurer to control the defense of the insured without acknowledging coverage. The Indiana Supreme Court declined review. The federal district court subsequently ruled that because Lodholtz’s employer had “leased” Lodholtz to Pulliam, he had been Pulliam’s employee, and that the Indiana judgment should be “disregarded.” The Seventh Circuit granted a petition under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and dismissed Granite State’s suit. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only federal court with appellate authority over state courts, but would have had no authority in this case because it involved no issue of federal law.View "Lodholtz v. Granite State Ins. Co." on Justia Law