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

In 2002, Taylor was convicted on eight counts for initiating inappropriate relationships with children. After trial, Taylor’s retained attorney withdrew. With new counsel, Taylor moved for a new trial, alleging a variety of errors including ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court agreed and vacated four counts, noting counsel’s failure to impeach or even cross-examine some witnesses. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the remaining convictions and the Illinois Supreme Court rejected a Petition for Leave to Appeal in 2004. Seeking state post-conviction relief, Taylor argued that trial counsel represented him while simultaneously under indictment for bribery Illinois, on four felony bribery charges. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed dismissal of the petition. Continuing to have trouble with attorneys he hired, Taylor turned to an online group, ACDG, which found attorneys to represent him in continuing appeals. Taylor claims that one of those attorneys gave him incorrect information about the deadline for filing a petition of habeas corpus in federal court. When ACDG confirmed to Taylor that it would not represent him in federal post-conviction review, Taylor filed a pro se petition, which was dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Taylor does not meet the standard for equitable tolling.View "Taylor v. Dexhiemer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in a maximum-security tier of Chicago’s Cook County Jail, sued a guard, Anderson, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Anderson failed to protect him from an attack by other inmates. Plaintiff claimed that Anderson had released the inmates from their cells and allowed them to congregate in a dark corridor, where the attack occurred, and that Anderson left her post after doing so. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of Anderson, refusing to allow plaintiff to testify that he overheard prisoners in the dayroom ask Anderson to let the prisoners in the other half of the tier out of their cells so that they could go to the dayroom too. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, stating a jury could draw an inference of deliberate indifference and that the proffered testimony was not inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff sought to testify to what he heard, not to the truth of anything said. The court also criticized the judge’s refusal to request assistance of counsel for the plaintiff. View "Junior v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After working at the company for four months, Benes charged his employer with sex discrimination. The EEOC arranged for mediation in which, after an initial joint session, the parties separated and a go-between relayed offers. Upon receiving a settlement proposal that he thought too low, Benes stormed into the room used by his employer’s representatives and said loudly: “You can take your proposal and shove it up your ass and fire me and I’ll see you in court.” The firm fired him. He filed suit under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–3(a), abandoning his claim of sex discrimination. A magistrate judge granted the employer summary judgment, finding that Benes had been fired for misconduct during the mediation, not for making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that section 2000e–3(a) does not establish a privilege to misbehave in mediation, but only bans retaliation “because [a person] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” View "Benes v. A.B. Data, Ltd." on Justia Law

Blake was indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846 and retained attorney Fabbri, not knowing that Fabbri was under investigation. Trial was set for January 9, 2007, within the 70 days required by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161. Killian, prosecutor in the Blake case, had little knowledge of the Fabbri investigation, because he and others in his district had been “screened off” to avoid conflicts of interest. At a final pretrial conference, Blake objected to, and Fabbri withdrew, a motion for continuance. Killian then learned that an indictment of Fabbri was imminent and withdrew from Blake’s prosecution. Fabbri successfully moved to withdraw. Following a bond hearing, several discovery motions by the defense, notice of intent to seek a sentencing enhancement, a conflict of interest hearing, a superseding indictment adding two narcotics-related offenses (two days before trial), and other motions, Blake withdrew consent to a previously-requested continuance and waived the 30-day allotment of time to prepare for trial on the new charges. Trial commenced on March 27; Blake was convicted on all counts. Following unsuccessful appeal, Blake timely filed a habeas petition. The district court denied the petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance View "Blake v. United States" on Justia Law

Lambert, an African-American was hired as a laborer at a Peri distribution yard in 2003. Lambert claims that co-workers and supervisors often made sexually and racially offensive comments. He complained regularly, but supervisors took no action. Nonetheless, Lambert was promoted to a lead position. One day, Lambert’s supervisors observed him behaving in an unusually aggressive manner and ordered him to take a drug and alcohol test. The test revealed that he was intoxicated. He was immediately fired under Peri’s “no tolerance” policy toward consuming alcohol on the job, an important policy for safety in a yard where workers operate heavy machinery and maneuver large concrete objects. Lambert attributed Peri’s decision to terminate his employment to racial discrimination and retaliation for his complaints. The district court rejected his claims on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit remanded. There was insufficient evidence that Lambert’s race motivated Peri’s decision to test for intoxication or to fire him, but the court acted prematurely in dismissing claims of sexual and racial harassment. A jury could find that he was subjected to a hostile work environment on account of race or sex, and that he took all necessary steps to call his treatment to the company’s attention. View "Lambert v. Peri Formworks Sys. Inc." on Justia Law

Shaw and two others were charged with aggravated battery after King was beaten to death outside a Fort Wayne motel. Shaw denied participating in the beating, but the other defendants, in exchange for prison sentences of less than three years, agreed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and to testify against Shaw. The court allowed the prosecution to elevate the charge against Shaw to murder over Shaw’s objection that an Indiana statute limits the time for amending charging documents. Shaw was convicted and sentenced to 60 years. On direct appeal, Shaw’s new attorney abandoned the argument that the information was amended too late and argued, unsuccessfully, insufficiency of the evidence to support conviction. Appellate counsel dropped the case and did not file with the Supreme Court of Indiana. Shaw unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief in state courts. The federal district court denied a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, which claimed that the lawyer’s decision to forgo challenging the amended information in favor of a frivolous challenge constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, reasoning that the Indiana appellate court’s decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington (1984), and the 2000 elaboration in Smith v. Robbins. View "Shaw v. Mize" on Justia Law

In 1999, Quintana and his friends lured a woman into a van. Quintana restrained the woman, while his friend sexually assaulted her. The victim escaped by jumping nude out of the moving van. Quintana was arrested and charged with kidnapping and sexual assault. After a year in prison awaiting trial, the state offered Quintana a plea deal of a four-year sentence on the kidnapping charge and a four-year sentence on the sexual assault charge to run concurrently at 50% good time, so that Quintana could plead guilty and serve one more year in prison. Quintana declined the deal, opting to go to trial and face a minimum of two six-year consecutive sentences. He was convicted and the district court sentenced Quintana to a term of six years and a consecutive term of 21 years. After 13 years, Quintana sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that trial counsel failed to adequately inform him of the consequences of his plea under the Illinois “accountability law,” under which his sentence had to be served at 85%. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the writ, finding that Quintana did not establish deficient performance or prejudice. View "Quintana v. Chandler" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin state prison inmate filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that prison officials retaliated against him for speaking up about two guards allegedly assaulting him. He was placed in segregation and forbidden to discuss the alleged assault. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, by not filing a grievance that conformed to prison rules. He responded that he interpreted the prohibition against speaking about the alleged assault to extend to filing a grievance and was afraid to file it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. While the duty to exhaust administrative remedies as a precondition to suing under section 1983 is limited to those remedies that are “available,” and a remedy is not available to a prisoner prevented by threats or other intimidation from seeking an administrative remedy, Wisconsin regulations limit the offense of making false statements to prison staff to statements made “outside the complaint review system.” The inmate had no reason to fear filing a grievance about alleged retaliation. View "Schultz v. Pugh" on Justia Law

Smego agreed to civil commitment under the Illinois Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act. During intake, he was seen by Mitchell, a dentist who found that 12 of his teeth had cavities. Throughout 2006, Smego’s cavities worsened and became painful, but he was not given a follow-up appointment. He made healthcare requests for unrelated medical issues, but not for his teeth. He claims that he believed requests were not necessary for problems already known to medical staff. During a chance encounter in 2007, Smego asked a dental hygienist who worked with Mitchell why he had never been called for the follow-up appointment. Smego, claims that she responded that the suction machine was inoperable and that Mitchell could not work on his teeth without it and warned that being a “pest” would not help him get an appointment. Smego saw Mitchell again 18 months after she told him about his cavities, but Mitchell repeatedly delayed treatment until 30 months after the first appointment. In Smego’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part, stating that Smego offered sufficient evidence for a jury to find that some of the defendants violated his constitutional rights. View "Smego v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Blackout performs asphalt paving work and other construction services and had contracts with the Chicago Transit Authority that were terminable at will. The CTA informed Blackout that it would not do business with the firm for the next year (debarment) and did not give a reason. Illinois law allows judicial review of debarment by public bodies, but Blackout did not avail itself of that process, nor did it sue for libel, although it insists that public announcement of debarment is defamatory, but filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming deprivation of “occupational liberty” without due process. The district court dismissed, noting that that inability to work for a single employer is not deprivation of occupational liberty and that there was no allegation of inability to work for public or private entities other than the CTA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Blackout won a school district contract after the CTA debarment. View "Blackout Sealcoating, Inc. v. Peterson" on Justia Law