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

Orlowski, a 21-year-old inmate, was asleep in his bunk. At 12:28 a.m. and 1:36 a.m. dorm supervisor Alexander patrolled and did not notice anything unusual. Sergeant Manns toured the dorm and did not note anything unusual. At 3:45 a.m., Alexander began awakening inmates for kitchen duty. Alexander saw Orlowski breathing abnormally, making noises, and “his body would make sudden moves.” Green, another inmate, persisted in voicing concern about Orlowski and was put in the “hole.” Alexander thought that Orlowski might have a sleep disorder. Despite efforts to wake him up, Orlowski remained unresponsive. Alexander left him but noted the situation in the logbook and called Manns. Manns denies that Alexander gave him all the information. Orlowski did not wake up for breakfast. At 4:35 a.m., Corrections Manager Ertman read Alexander’s log entry and saw Orlowski. Alexander observed Orlowski at 4:55 a.m. and at 5:48 a.m. At 6:10 a.m., the inmates returned from breakfast. Alexander heard someone shouting “man down!” Alexander called a medical emergency. Orlowski was pronounced dead at 6:54 a.m. He died from a methadone overdose, caused by pills purchased from another inmate. According to medical experts, Orlowski would have fully recovered if he had received medical care between 3:45 and 5:48 a.m. The district court rejected all claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed on the Eighth Amendment claim. There is a material dispute of fact as to whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to Orlowski’s severe medical condition. The court affirmed rejection of a substantive due process claim; there is no evidence that defendants intentionally interfered in plaintiff’s familial relationship. View "Orlowski v. Milwaukee County" on Justia Law

Monroe worked for the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for more than 21 years. His job involved cleaning up human remains after traffic accidents; he witnessed a co‐worker die after a work‐related accident. He had served in combat in the Gulf War, and, in 2012 Monroe’s sister, who lived with him, died of cancer. Monroe also worked a second job In December 2012, Monroe told his supervisor, George, that he was stressed, burned out, could not sleep, and wanted to be transferred to the day shift. After two requests, he was told that no position was available. In 2013, after Monroe’s subordinates complained to George about Monroe, Monroe disclosed that recently he had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Although Monroe had received performance reviews indicating that he “exceeded expectations” as late as January 2013, INDOT discharged Monroe for creating a hostile and intimidating work environment. Monroe alleged that he was terminated “on the basis of” his mental disability in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact that INDOT’s proffered reason for discharging him was pretextual or that INDOT treated similarly situated non‐disabled employees more favorably. View "Monroe v. Indiana Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Milwaukee police received a tip that a residence was being used as a drug house and secured a no-knock warrant. Entering, the officers saw Lee, beside a table holding a digital scale, a razor blade, sandwich baggies, a cell phone, $157 in cash, and a baggie containing 5.7 grams of cocaine. Officers searched Lee and found $582 and the house keys. Officers recovered two larger bags of cocaine, a loaded handgun, and latex gloves from other parts of the house. Lee claimed to be an innocent bystander, at the house was to help his brother move. Lee was convicted of drug crimes but acquitted of a firearm charge. Lee moved for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve objections, adequately cross-examine witnesses, and develop factual points at trial. Applying the Strickland standard, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected Lee’s claim for lack of prejudice, explicitly addressing all but one of Lee’s complaints. Lee unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Under Supreme Court precedent, when a state court rejects a prisoner’s federal claim without discussion, a federal habeas court must presume that the court adjudicated it on the merits unless some state-law procedural principle indicates otherwise, even when the decision expressly addresses some but not all of a prisoner’s claims. Lee did not rebut the presumption, so the state court’s entire decision is subject to deferential review. The Wisconsin court reasonably applied Strickland. View "Lee v. Avila" on Justia Law

In 2000, Winfield was convicted of attempted murder. On direct appeal and post-conviction review, the Illinois appellate courts rejected Winfield’s challenges to his conviction and 30-year prison sentence. By agreement of the parties, a federal district court later reviewed Winfield’s conviction under a less deferential standard than called for after the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), and granted Winfield habeas relief. In a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the state then sought to reverse its concession that the pre-AEDPA standard applied, which the district court denied as waived. The state had previously agreed that the Illinois courts had not considered the merits of Winfield’s ineffective assistance claim, then changed its position. The Seventh Circuit reversed, citing AEDPA case law and principles of state comity. The state’s original agreement that a pre-AEDPA standard of review applied did not, alone, necessarily amount to an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Although waiver may be appropriate for some defenses or arguments available under AEDPA, such as the statute of limitations, the same is not true section 2254(d)’s deferential standard of review. View "Winfield v. Dorethy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were white and Hispanic members of Chicago Mayor Daley’s protective services detail, Unit 542. Each held the rank of patrol officer but was assigned to the security-specialist position, and received a sergeant’s pay. Daley announced that he would not seek reelection. Rahm Emanuel began his mayoral campaign. Several police officers volunteered to provide campaign security. Emanuel was elected Mayor. Six of the volunteers were appointed to Emanuel’s transition detail. Emanuel told Interim Police Superintendent Hillard that his permanent detail should reflect the city's diversity and be “bare bones.” Hillard reduced the detail from 21 officers and two commanders to 16 officers and one commander and began his search with officers serving Daley. Hillard claimed that he relied on his command team’s recommendations. He selected five officers working on Emanuel’s transition detail. The final detail contained seven white, five Hispanic, and five black officers. The department reassigned Plaintiffs as patrol officers. Plaintiffs alleged patronage hiring in violation of the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983; violation of the “Shakman” consent decrees; race discrimination, 42 U.S.C. 1981, the Equal Protection Clause (42 U.S.C. 1983) and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. All of the claims were either dismissed or rejected at trial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported a finding that city officials did not consider political factors when appointing Emanuel’s detail and the court did not err in excluding evidence of historic discrimination. View "Houlihan v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

While investigating a tip that illegal drugs were being sold from a south-side convenience store, Chicago Police Officer Brown sucker-punched a store employee for no apparent reason. As the dazed employee attempted to stagger away, Brown continued to beat and kick him for about two minutes. The beating was caught on the store’s surveillance camera. At his trial for willfully depriving the employee of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force inflicted by a law-enforcement officer, Brown sought to introduce expert testimony from a former Chicago police officer that Brown’s actions were consistent with departmental standards. The judge excluded the expert witness, reasoning that departmental policy was immaterial to the Fourth Amendment inquiry and that the expert’s proposed testimony might include an improper opinion about Brown’s state of mind. The jury found Brown guilty. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Expert testimony about police standards may appropriately assist the jury in resolving some excessive-force questions, but sometimes evidence of this type is unhelpful and irrelevant, particularly when no specialized knowledge is needed to determine whether the officer’s conduct was objectively unreasonable. The misconduct alleged here was easily within the grasp of a lay jury. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Hicks admitted to sexually molesting his former stepson, during a recorded phone call from a police station. During the call, before the confession, the victim repeatedly threatened to harm Hicks and to tell Hicks’s other minor son about the abuse. Hicks’s counsel played the entire recorded conversation to the jury. Later, the prosecutor referred to an earlier case in which Hicks had pleaded guilty after being accused of similar conduct. He asked the jury if it was “fair” that Hicks had been permitted to plea bargain to misdemeanors and receive probation and “Is that what should have happened here or should we deal with this?” Hicks’s counsel did not object. Hicks was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. After a failed state collateral challenge, he sought federal habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. While the state court unreasonably determined that Hicks’s counsel was credible when he testified that Hicks told him that he did not feel threatened during the call, Hicks did not suffer prejudice from the tape’s admission, because the other evidence of his guilt was sufficient to sustain his conviction. The court stated that it was “very troubled by the state court’s finding” regarding the prosecutor’s statements and defense counsel’s failure to object, but Hicks did not fairly present that claim to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and procedurally defaulted on the claim for relief. View "Hicks v. Hepp" on Justia Law

In 1998, Dr. Wilson’s terminally ill patient was within hours of death. He was in pain and suffocating. Wilson concluded that the only possible palliation was unconsciousness. As Wilson was injecting a drug, the patient’s heart stopped. The coroner classified the death as murder. The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation summarily suspended Wilson’s medical license. The Department held a hearing in 2000. The coroner’s finding of homicide had been withdrawn; Wilson was not charged. His license was nonetheless suspended for five years. He sued in state and federal courts. Rather than staying proceedings, the federal court dismissed. Four times a state judge vacated the suspension. The Department reinstated its decision three times. Without a new hearing or explanation, the Department entered a new five-year suspension in 2007, and another in 2013. In 2014, the state court held that Wilson should not have been suspended for even one day. The Department did not reinstate Wilson’s license because he had not practiced during the last 17 years. In 2014 Wilson sought damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court held that the two-year statute of limitations had been running since 1998. The Seventh Circuit vacated. A federal challenge to a state administrative agency decision is not subject to an exhaustion-of-remedies rule but a claim never accrues until the plaintiff “has a complete and present cause of action”. The court noted the district court’s 1999 holding that Wilson could not litigate in federal court while state proceedings were ongoing; his section 1983 claim for damages did not accrue until 2014. View "Wilson v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation" on Justia Law

At 1:10 p.m. on March 12, 2009, Mordi, a Nigerian student at Southern Illinois University, and a passenger were traveling on Interstate 57. An Illinois state police car, driven by Trooper Zeigler, signaled for Mordi to pull over. Mordi complied. Zeigler approached and asked why the license plate was inside the windshield and stated that the car’s hood was not closed all the way. Zeigler asked Mordi about an outstanding warrant for failure to appear in a misdemeanor marijuana case. After issuing a warning citation, Zeigler asked Mordi if he could search the car; Mordi said no. About 20 minutes into the stop, Zeigler radioed for a drug‐sniffing dog, which arrived 10 minutes later and alerted. The officers found crack cocaine in Mordi’s bag in the back seat. Mordi pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute the cocaine and is serving a 120‐month sentence. In 2012, Mordi filed suit, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court screened Mordi’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A and dismissed all claims except those against three officers, which relied on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Seventh Circuit held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on those claims. The district court dismissed all claims against all parties and denied a motion to reconsider its section 1915A order. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Mordi’s Fourth Amendment claims that the officers engaged in impermissible racial profiling and unlawfully prolonged the stop may proceed. View "Mordi v. Zeigler" on Justia Law

The University of Indiana South Bend employed Professor Grant, an African-American, in 1999. In 2008, several students complained to University administration that Grant inappropriately canceled classes, used obscene language in class, dismissed two students from his course without following proper procedure, and had permitted a nonemployee to grade student work and access academic records. During an investigation, Grant filed affirmative action complaints against the investigators. Students went to the South Bend Tribune with their concerns. The investigation uncovered discrepancies in Grant’s work history. The University dismissed then-tenured Professor Grant in 2011 for “serious misconduct” based on misrepresentations in his curriculum vitae. The district court rejected all of Grant’s 26 claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Grant’s claims that the University: discriminated against him on the basis of race; retaliated against him for his complaints against two University officials; denied him due process of law; defamed him in the South Bend Tribune; and breached a contract created by the University’s handbook. View "Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University" on Justia Law