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

The plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaining that during nine months while he was a pretrial detainee in a Porter County, Indiana jail he was denied medical care for a bullet wound to his abdomen, and other essential medical care. The district court, while fully crediting his testimony, dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. There was no record in the jail’s grievance log of the plaintiff filing a grievance. He testified that he never received, or been given access to, a copy of the jail’s grievance procedure, though he knew from other inmates that there was such a procedure and had asked a guard for, but was never given a grievance form. Another prisoner testified that he overheard the plaintiff ask for the grievance form. The plaintiff eventually met with the Warden, who promised to speak to the medical staff and “take care of the problem.” He did not suggest that the plaintiff file a grievance. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, noting that the plaintiff asked a supervisor whether he should file a grievance and was told “not to worry about it.” When a jail official invites noncompliance with a procedure the prisoner is not required to follow the procedure.View "Swisher v. Porter Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't" on Justia Law

On September 16, 2003, Matz and others were on the porch of a Milwaukee apartment when officers assigned to the warrant squad were driving through the area in an unmarked squad on an unrelated matter. On the porch they saw and recognized Salazar, who they believed was a suspect in two homicides and several shootings. By the time Klotka made a U-turn and approached, everyone on the porch was leaving. Matz admits seeing the police, who were in uniform, but claims that he had already left the porch. He acknowledges hearing someone say “detects” as he was leaving. The officers pursued the individuals into an alley, drawing guns while shouting, “Police! Stop!” Eventually, Matz was handcuffed and put into a patrol car; the car he was driving was stolen. Salazar was arrested. According to Matz, he was questioned for several hours after stating that he did not want to talk and wanted an attorney; was kept in a cell and never provided with medications he had been taking for psychosis and depression; and was recovering from pneumonia when he admitted his involvement in two homicides. He later recanted his inculpatory statement and named Salazar as the shooter, although he admitted being present. Matz nonetheless pleaded guilty to first-degree reckless homicide and felony murder with robbery as the underlying crime and was sentenced to 60 years imprisonment. Matz filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in 2010. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Matz v. Klotka" on Justia Law

2011 Wis. Act 23 required a photo ID for voting, similar to an Indiana law, which the Supreme Court upheld in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008). After the district court enjoined enforcement of the law, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed two similar injunctions issued by state courts but ordered state officials to make it easier for registered voters to obtain documentation (such as birth certificates) that they may need to obtain photo IDs, or to waive the documentation requirement if obtaining birth certificates proves difficult or expensive. With the state injunctions lifted, the state requested a stay of the federal injunction so that it could use the photo ID requirement in this fall’s election. A divided Seventh Circuit granted a stay and denied reconsideration, noting Wisconsin’s “strong prospect of success on appeal’ and the public interest in using laws enacted through the democratic process, until the laws’ validity has been finally determined. The burden of getting a photo ID in Wisconsin is not materially different from the burden that Crawford deemed acceptable. View "Frank v. Walker" on Justia Law

Springfield has an ordinance that prohibits panhandling in its “downtown historic district”—less than 2% of the city’s area but containing its principal shopping, entertainment, and governmental areas, including the Statehouse and many state-government buildings. The ordinance defines panhandling as an oral request for an immediate donation of money. Signs requesting money are allowed; as are oral pleas to send money later. Plaintiffs have received citations for violating this ordinance and allege that they will continue panhandling but fear liability. They unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction. The parties agreed that panhandling is a form of speech, to which the First Amendment applies, and that if it drew lines on the basis of speech’s content it would be unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the ordinance, which it called “indifferent to the solicitor’s stated reason for seeking money, or whether the requester states any reason at all…. Springfield has not meddled with the marketplace of ideas.” The prohibition is based on where a person says something rather than what position a person takes.View "Norton v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

“Jane Doe” was born in Russia and came to the U.S. at age two when she was adopted by American parents. During her sixth and seventh grade years, male classmates bullied her, sometimes hurling gendered or ethnic insults. The bullying turned violent. Three boys were charged with criminal battery and were expelled or withdrew from school. Doe sued Elmbrook School District and administrators under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, claiming that the bullying was motivated by her sex and ethnicity, and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. “Although Doe’s classmates’ actions were inexcusable,” the defendants are not legally responsible for those actions. Knowing how thoughtless and cruel children can be to one another, the Supreme Court has interpreted Title VI and Title IX to impose a demanding standard for holding schools and school officials legally responsible for one student’s mistreatment of another. School officials must have had “actual knowledge” of harassment “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.” Even assuming Doe’s harassers were motivated by her sex or ethnicity, once the defendants gained actual notice of behavior that could qualify as severe and pervasive, they took action against the wrongdoers. View "Doe v. Galster" on Justia Law

Satkar owns Schaumburg, Illinois hotel and was mentioned in blog posts and a television news report as having made a large donation to a local politician and later won a property-tax appeal. In response, the Cook County Board of Review revoked Satkar’s property-tax reduction and opened an inquiry. Satkar sued the Board, its members and staff, the blog, the television station, and reporters, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and for defamation and false light. The district court dismissed the 1983 claims against the Board and the officials. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court separately dismissed the state-law claims against the media defendants, applying the Illinois Anti-SLAPP statute. Because the section 1983 claims were still pending, the judge entered final judgment under FRCP 54(b) to permit appeal of the SLAPP issue. Later, the judge orally invited Satkar to ask for a Rule 54(b) judgment on the SLAPP dismissal, forgetting that he had already entered final judgment. Satkar did not correct the judge, did not seek clarification, and did not file a notice of appeal. After the deadline to appeal expired, Satkar sought an extension, claiming that the judge’s comment created confusion. The judge granted the extension, relying on the defunct “unique circumstances” doctrine. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal, noting that the Supreme Court has disavowed the unique circumstances doctrine and Satkar has not otherwise demonstrated excusable neglect. View "Satkar Hospitality, Inc.v. Fox Television Stations, Inc." on Justia Law

Moultrie, who began working at Penn Aluminum in southern Illinois in1990 and held various positions, was demoted from his position as a forklift operator in 2009. Before his demotion, he had filed a grievance concerning a work assignment. That grievance did not allege racial discrimination. He filed another grievance, after the demotion, again not mentioning race. After his claims were rejected by the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the EEOC, Moultrie sued. Penn asserted that Moultrie was demoted because of performance problems that caused delays and other problems and about which he was repeatedly warned. Moultrie, attributed Penn’s decision to racial discrimination and retaliation and claimed that Penn’s conduct violated the collective-bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed an Illinois state-law claim as time barred and entered summary judgment against Moultrie on all remaining claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Moultrie failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his discrimination and retaliation claims.View "Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2006, after coworkers made offensive comments, orally and in graffiti, about Muhammad’s race and perceived sexual orientation, Muhammad complained to management. Caterpillar responded. Walls were repainted and employees were warned that anyone caught defacing the walls would be fired. Six weeks later, Muhammad left his work station during non-break time to use the restroom, and checked the bid board before returning to work. Supervisor Edwards confronted him about use of work time to check the board. Edwards contends that Muhammad responded with disrespectful comments and walked away. Muhammad claimd that he did not act disrespectfully, but did not want to discuss it without a union representative present. Edwards suspended Muhammad and walked him out of the plant, allegedly for insubordination. After an internal investigation, the suspension was deemed appropriate. Muhammad filed a grievance through his union and was allowed to return to work. He was suspended again and later terminated based on his conduct upon his return. Following settlement of his grievance of the termination, he returned to work. He was later laid off in a reduction in force. He was subsequently rehired and remains employed at Caterpillar. Based on the 2006 incidents, Muhammad filed charges of harassment and retaliation with the EEOC. After receiving a right-to-sue letter, he sued, claiming hostile work environment and retaliation. The district court entered summary judgment for Caterpillar. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the company reasonably responded to complaints of harassment and no evidence suggested that Caterpillar suspended Muhammad because he complained.View "Muhammad v. Caterpillar, Inc." on Justia Law

A government informant bought cocaine and heroin from Davis. Davis expressed an interest in robbery; the informant introduced him to an undercover agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, posing as a disgruntled drug courier. The agent recruited Davis to rob his employer’s stash house, which he said contained 50 kilograms of cocaine and was protected by armed guards. Davis recruited six others. On the day of the intended robbery, the crew (with semiautomatic firearms) met the agent in a parking lot and followed him to a warehouse for a planning session, which was recorded. The seven were arrested and charged with conspiring and attempting to possess, with the intent to distribute, five or more kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846; conspiring and attempting to affect interstate commerce by means of a robbery, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and knowingly possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A). Because the prosecution was based on a “sting” initiated by the government, the defendants, all African-American, sought discovery of information relevant to potential racial profiling and selective prosecution. After announcing its intent not to comply with the order, the government sought dismissal without prejudice to facilitate an immediate appeal. The district court granted the request. The government filed an appeal under 18 U.S.C. 3731. The Seventh Circuit concluded that because the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the government to re-file regardless of the outcome of the appeal, it was not a final order.View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law

Because of inaccurate information about time served in the county jail for two theft convictions, Armanto’s release date was recalculated. After receiving orders from the court that entered his convictions and concerned about the conditions for releasing Armanto, who was previously convicted as a sex offender, employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) sought advice from the Office of the Attorney General. Because the court had not imposed mandatory supervision, IDOC “violated him at the door,” so that he was not released as he expected. After his release, Armato sued five IDOC employees, claiming violation of Armato’s constitutional rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and false imprisonment.. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, finding that no rational trier of fact could find that Armato was unlawfully detained beyond his court-ordered release date. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Armato did not suffer any injury because he was released prior to the precise date in an “Agreed Order,” the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Armato’s incarceration, but diligently pursued relief from the AG’s Office for clarification, and Armato’s due process claims failed as a matter of law and were precluded by the remedies available to him in state court.View "Armato v. Grounds" on Justia Law