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

The Seventh Circuit affirmed district court decisions invalidating Indiana and Wisconsin laws that did not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, whether contracted in those states or in states (or foreign countries) where they are lawful. The states gave no “reasonable basis” for forbidding same-sex marriage, but more than a reasonable basis was required because the challenged discrimination is “along suspect lines,” being against a minority and based on an immutable characteristic of the members of that minority, against an historical background of discrimination against the persons who have that characteristic. These circumstances create a presumption that the discrimination is a denial of the equal protection. The discrimination does not confer an important offsetting benefit on society as a whole and is not appropriate to its stated objectives. The court stated that: “Formally these cases are about discrimination against the small homosexual minority,” but at a deeper level, they are about the welfare of children. Children adopted by homosexual couples would be better off emotionally and economically if their adoptive parents were married. With respect to the states’ arguments about governmental interest in the welfare of children, the court noted that infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry. View "Wolf v. Walker" on Justia Law

After being caught establishing a fraudulent worker’s compensation insurance program, , Neal was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and sentenced to 327 months’ imprisonment. He is incarcerated in Terre Haute, Indiana. Prison administrators discovered that he had signed a court document with an alias. They disciplined him for violating a prison rule which forbids forging any document, identification, money, or official paper by revoking his commissary and telephone privileges for 180 days. Neal sought a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2241, claiming denial of due process. Neal moved three times to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, submitting a purported arbitration agreement, executed by a representative of the Bureau of Prisons and himself, under his assumed name. The district court denied the motion, noted that the only penalties Neal suffered were the loss of privileges, neither of which affected custody, so that relief under section 2241 was unavailable. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that there is no basis for an arbitration claim. Neal's documents are obvious fabrications and the Federal Arbitration Act governs only maritime contracts and contracts involving interstate commerce. The court imposed an additional fine of $500 on Neal. Until he pays all outstanding fees and sanctions, clerks of all federal courts within the circuit must return unfiled any papers he submits in any habeas corpus action unless the petition attacks a state-court criminal judgment. The court also ordered Neal to show cause why not to sanction him under FRAP 38 for filing a frivolous appeal and forwarded the file for consideration of prosecution for perjury.View "Neal v. Oliver" on Justia Law

Contending that a guard had assaulted him during a pat-down by inserting a finger in his anus, inmate Rivera filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Drake, the guard, moved to dismiss because Rivera had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Rivera provided an affidavit claiming to have filed an administrative complaint on the day after the alleged assault. The judge granted summary judgment to the guard, deeming the events too trivial to justify damages. The Seventh Circuit reversed. On remand, Rivera testified that he had filed a written grievance. The judge found that the affidavit and testimony were false. Prison records contained more than 100 of Rivera’s grievances, but none relating to assault during a pat-down until August 2009. Rivera conceded in that grievance (which did not mention Drake) that it was untimely and had been filed only “for exhaustion purposes”. Prison officials testified about how grievances are collected and recorded; the judge concluded that there was little chance that a written grievance would be lost. The judge observed that Rivera’s initial allegation had been that he made an oral complaint, not a written grievance. The court dismissed, concluding that by committing perjury Rivera had forfeited his claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed and issued an order requiring Rivera to show cause why it should not revoke his privilege of litigating in forma pauperis and imposing financial sanctions that, if unpaid, will lead to the entry of a litigation-control order. “Rivera has made deceit the norm in his litigation. He is a frequent plaintiff, and many of his suits entail dissembling.” View "Rivera v. Drake" on Justia Law

Olendzki is a psychologist at an Illinois state prison. After he was elected to his union’s Executive Board, Olendzki began to advocate for fellow union members and to voice concerns to management. Olendzki believes that this advocacy led to hostile relationships with his superiors and caused them to retaliate against him by removing him from a hostage crisis team; ordering him to meet with mentally ill inmates without guard supervision in the same room; relocating his office; increasing his workload; filing a harassment claim against him; not providing a written justification to Olendzki’s request for advance leave time, which resulted in the denial of the request; and revising institutional directives that affected Olendzki’s job duties without Olendzki’s input. Olendzki was never fired, disciplined, or denied an employment opportunity. He sued six of his superiors under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that they retaliated against him for his union advocacy, a violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Olendzki was acting as a union official, not as a public employee, when he made the statements at issue, so that they were not protected under the First Amendment.View "Olendzki v. Rossi" on Justia Law

In 2004 Miller was charged with First Degree Sexual Assault of a Child. Miller entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. In 2006, Miller filed notice of intent to pursue post-conviction relief, alleging that he failed to understand his original plea. The court appointed Grau to represent Miller. Grau filed a post-conviction motion. Miller, however, withdrew the motion during an April 2007 hearing. In May, Grau informed Miller that Grau felt there was no legal basis for pursuing post-conviction relief. Miller did not hear back from Grau for months and wrote to the State Public Defender’s Office, which wrote back that the Office “will not appoint successor counsel when a defendant disagrees with the legal conclusions of appointed counsel or wants a second opinion as to the merits of an appeal” and informed Miller that he could proceed pro se, hire a different attorney at his own expense, or direct Grau to file a no-merit report. Miller directed Grau to file a no-merit report; Grau failed to do so. In January, 2008, Miller filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus in a Wisconsin court, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court granted Miller’s petition and advised Miller to seek assistance from the State Public Defender. Miller never did so. Miller petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court. After additional proceedings and disputes, Miller proceeded pro se and unsuccessfully sought federal habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Wisconsin court’s denial of Miller’s request for new appellate counsel was not clearly contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and his challenge to the validity of his plea was procedurally defaulted.View "Miller v. Smith" on Justia Law

After his employment with the town was terminated, the plaintiff sought benefits under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. The town opposed his claim, arguing that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he had constructively resigned “without good cause” by failing to obtain a commercial driver’s license within one year of starting work, a condition of his employment. The department agreed with the town. The plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed. He then sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that he was fired in violation of his rights to due process of law and freedom of speech. The district court dismissed the claim as barred by collateral estoppel. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that the Illinois statute, 820 ILCS 405/1900(B), denies collateral estoppel effect to rulings in unemployment insurance proceedings. View "Council v. Village of Dolton" on Justia Law

Former employees of an Indiana city sued the mayor and the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that the mayor had fired them because of their political affiliations, in violation of their First Amendment rights. The mayor responded that political affiliation was a permissible qualification for their jobs. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the mayor with respect to nine of the 11 plaintiffs, on the ground that his argument concerning political qualification for their jobs was sufficiently arguable to entitle him to qualified immunity, but declined to certify interlocutory appeal with respect to the other two plaintiffs. The Seventh Circuit stayed proceedings pending interlocutory appeal of the issue of qualified immunity, reasoning that whether a job is one for which political affiliation is a permissible criterion presents a question of law. Qualified immunity is an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation. The privilege is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.View "Allman v. Smith" on Justia Law

Petkus owns a property that she operated as an animal sanctuary until 2009, when an investigation by the ASPCA resulted in a search of her property, termination of her employment as Richland County dogcatcher, her arrest and prosecution for animal neglect, and a sentence to three years of probation. As authorized by Wis. Stat. 173.10, the ASPCA investigator procured a warrant to search Petkus’s property. The warrant directed law enforcement officers to enlist in the search veterinarians or any “other persons or agencies authorized by the Richland County District Attorney.” The veterinary and 40-50 animal-rights volunteers who accompanied deputy sheriffs conducted the search. They had not been deputized. The deputy sheriffs’ role was not to participate in the search but simply to “keep the peace.” Petkus sued, alleging negligence in failing to train or supervise the amateur searchers and that the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Petkus won an award of damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting needless damage to Petkus’s property and that the “incompetence of the amateur searchers is apparent from the reports of the deputy sheriffs.” View "Petkus v. Richland Cnty" on Justia Law

McDowell alleges that, after work, he met friends at a bar. They stayed until the bar’s 4:00 a.m. closing time. They exited the front door and were confronted by other individuals, including an off-duty police officer. The groups came to blows. McDowell claims that he attempted to break up the fight, retreated to his car, saw his adversaries attempt to vandalize it, and told his companions to call the police. Rodriguez was dispatched to the scene and found McDowell running around parked cars, trying to evade at least three men who were chasing him. Rodriguez approached McDowell with his Taser drawn and ordered everyone to get on the ground. The chase stopped and everyone lay down, except Morandi, one of McDowell’s antagonists. While McDowell lay prone 10 feet in front of Rodriguez, looking up at him with his hands behind his head, Morandi walked towards McDowell from about 15-20 feet away. Rodriguez did not issue a second warning nor did he point his Taser. Morandi kept coming and kicked McDowell in the face. The impact broke his jaw, which required surgery. McDowell alleges that Rodriguez still failed to handcuff Morandi and did not request an ambulance. McDowell sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging substantive due process violations and Illinois common law willful and wanton conduct. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Rodriguez’s conduct, even according to McDowell’s depiction, was not sufficiently egregious to qualify as a constitutional tort or to vitiate his state-law immunity.View "McDowell v. Vill. of Lansing" on Justia Law

Deputy Sheriff Sergeant Graber worked at the Milwaukee County jail and was vice president of the union. A child was killed when a concrete slab fell from a county park structure. Captain Meverden was the incident commander on the scene; he immediately assigned deputy sheriffs at the jail the task of securing the perimeter. The deputies were informed to stay for mandatory overtime even if their usual shifts were over. Meverden ordered Sergeant Mascari to ask for volunteers to comply with the collective bargaining agreement. Graber arrived for his shift as Intake Booking Sergeant; he was not sent to the park and did not have any staffing responsibilities. A fellow deputy who had been assigned to secure the park approached Graber and complained about the mandatory overtime. Graber took the position that the mandatory overtime violated the collective bargaining agreement. Meverden stated that the mandatory overtime was necessary because volunteers could not be mobilized quickly enough. Following a series of subsequent events, Graber received a seven-day suspension, purportedly unrelated to the staffing issue. The suspension was overturned by an arbitrator. Graber sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of rights to free speech and association and the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Officer’s Bill of Rights. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Graber failed to establish a causal connection between his constitutionally protected speech and an adverse employment action.View "Graber v. Clarke" on Justia Law