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

Lee was convicted of first-degree reckless homicide plus two counts of armed robbery, based on evidence that he and Thomas traveled to Meyers’s residence in Oshkosh, to collect a drug debt. Four people were present when they arrived: Meyers’s half-brother Johnston, Meyers’s friend Paez and her two-year-old daughter, and Meyers. A fight broke out; Lee pulled a gun and fatally shot Meyers in the abdomen. Lee and Thomas left the apartment and drove to Milwaukee where they met with Johnson. Johnson drove them to a gas station and then dropped Lee off at a street corner. Shortly thereafter, Johnson and Thomas were pulled over by Milwaukee police and arrested. Lee was apprehended in Chicago a month later. Lee’s conviction was affirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. State courts denied post-conviction relief. The federal district court denied habeas corpus relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that an in-court identification of Lee violated his rights to due process and that admission of an out-of-court statement at trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. An adequate and independent state ground precluded consideration of Lee’s claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Lee v. Baenen" on Justia Law

Candidates for Chicago mayor, city treasurer, or city clerk must submit signatures from 12,500 “legal voters of the city” to have their name printed on the ballot, 65 ILCS 20/21-28(b). This number is just under 1% of the 1.3 million registered Chicago voters. As a proportion of active voters, the number is higher. Candidates are advised to allow some margin for error, in case of challenges. They have 90 days in which to gather signatures. Voters may not sign more than one nominating petition for the same office in a single election cycle. Chicago’s most recent general election took place in February 2011; 20 candidates submitted petitions to run for mayor, including four of the plaintiffs. Only Walls gathered enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The plaintiffs challenged the 12,500-signature requirement. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. While an interlocutory appeal was pending Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor. Walls came in sixth. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to also challenge the 90-day limitation and the rule that a voter cannot sign more than one candidate’s petition in any election cycle. The district court concluded that their claims had been “soundly rejected by extensive Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit precedent” and dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Stone v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Chicago police officers arrested Venson for possession of a controlled substance and solicitation of an unlawful act, and he spent 19 days in jail. After a preliminary hearing resulted in the dismissal of charges for want of probable cause, Venson sued the officers involved in his arrest for false arrest, illegal search, and malicious prosecution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The parties had differing accounts of the events that resulted in the arrest, which apparently involved someone in the vicinity yelling “rocks.” A jury found in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. “This was a swearing contest, and nothing precluded the jury from crediting the defendants’ account of what occurred.” View "Venson v. Altamirano" on Justia Law

Wisconsin’s Act 10 significantly changed Wisconsin public‐sector labor law: it prohibited government employers from collectively bargaining with their general employees (not public safety employees) over anything except base wages and precluded general‐employee unions from using automatic payroll deductions and fair‐share agreements. Act 10 mandated that general‐employee unions submit to a recertification election every year (instead of remaining certified indefinitely) and certification requires affirmative votes from an absolute majority of the bargaining unit, not just those voting. Public‐employee unions and an individual union member sued, claiming that these changes infringe their First Amendment petition and association rights and deny union members the equal protection of the laws. The district court rejected the challenges. The Seventh Circuit, having previously held that Act 10’s prohibition on payroll deductions did not violate the First Amendment and that Act 10’s distinction between public safety and general employees was viewpoint‐neutral, affirmed. The court concluded that the law does not implicate the First Amendment and applied rational basis review. Its limitations on the scope of statutory collective bargaining are rationally related to a legitimate government interest: promoting flexibility in state and local government budgets by providing public employers more leverage in negotiations. View "Laborers Local 236, AFLO-CIO v. Walker" on Justia Law

In 1998 Ambrose was charged with predatory criminal sexual assault (720 ILCS 5/12-14.1(a)(1)), based on his alleged sexual penetration of his five-year-old daughter and her friend. In 1999, the state successfully sought civil commitment of Ambrose under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act, 725 ILCS 205/0.01-205/12, which allows for the indefinite commitment of a person who had not yet been convicted of a sexual offense by establishing that the person has a mental disorder that renders him sexually dangerous. Ambrose sought release by filing a recovery application in 2005. The state court denied that application in 2008. Ambrose filed a federal petition for habeas relief in 2010, alleging that his due process rights were violated when, at the hearing on his recovery application, evidence was admitted of allegations of abuse made against him in Arizona and Indiana, and that the ruling compromised his right to a fundamentally fair trial. The district court denied relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Given that Ambrose failed to acknowledge the history that formed the basis for the commitment, and refused to participate in treatment for that disorder, there was no basis to conclude that, absent the reference to the out-of-state abuse allegations, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. View "Ambrose v. Roeckeman" on Justia Law

South Bend police responded to a report that Davis was being held against her will at the Henderson house. Winfield showed Sergeant Wolff text messages from Davis. Wolff confirmed that the woman sending the texts was in Henderson’s house, called the SWAT team, and set up a perimeter of officers and spotlights. Winfield got a text: “he’s got the door bolted, I can’t get out.” The officers did not attempt direct contact, but set up a loudspeaker and demanded that Henderson exit the house. Several minutes later, Davis came out and stated that all the exits had keyed deadbolts and the keys were in Henderson’s possession and that Henderson threatened her with a handgun. About 30 minutes later, Henderson voluntarily left the house, locking the door behind him. Officers did not find any weapons in his possession. Unable to unlock the door, officers forced entry and conducted a five-minute protective sweep. They did not find anyone else in the house, but saw remnants of a marijuana growing operation and firearms in plain view. Police then obtained a warrant and found crack cocaine, powder cocaine, marijuana, and five firearms. Charged as a drug user in possession of firearms, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), Henderson unsuccessfully moved to suppress the firearms. Convicted, he was sentenced to 39 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Bryn Mawr Chicago nursing home, a Medicaid provider, is subject to Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) inspections. In 2010, IDPH inspected the facility following allegations that a resident had been sexually assaulted. Bryn Mawr was eventually cited for three deficiencies, 42 C.F.R. 488.301, two based on sexual abuse and one based on failure to sufficiently monitor a resident. Bryn Mawr challenged the findings by Informal Dispute Resolution, which involved exchange of written information without a live hearing. IDPH simultaneously conducted internal review and found that the deficiencies based on allegations of sexual abuse were not sufficiently supported by credible evidence, but the third party upheld the deficiency findings. Ultimately IDPH maintained the deficiency findings. Meanwhile, Bryn Mawr also engaged in a parallel process to “correct” deficiencies. At the follow-up inspection, IDPH determined that the deficiencies had been corrected, so that remedies would not be imposed. IDPH passed the deficiency findings on to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which published them on its website and factored them into its 5-Star Rating System. Bryn Mawr’s rating was supposed to fall from five to four stars because of the deficiencies, but CMS mistakenly reduced it to two stars. Regardless of a partial correction, Bryn Mawr was displeased that it had not had the opportunity to challenge the findings at a hearing and sued to compel a hearing. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Bryn Mawr Care, Inc. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Davis, in prison following a guilty plea, sought federal collateral relief more than a year had expired, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) had expired. He claimed equitable tolling, asserting that his mental limitations excused untimely filing. A magistrate judge found that ability to make such a motion indicated mental competence. The Seventh Circuit vacated, referring to “Catch 22” reasoning and noting that someone else may have drafted and mailed the motion. Davis claimed that a fellow prisoner had done so. Mental incompetence can support tolling of federal statutes of limitations; the likelihood that mentally marginal prisoners will lack the assistance of guardians or lawyers means that, for them, such tolling is especially important. Something more than general inability to cope with legal matters is required, such as inability to understand the charges and assist in one’s own defense. The court declined to limit the range of possibilities, but noted that a report prepared by Wisconsin’s prison system concluded that he has an IQ of 49, is illiterate and uneducable, and cannot cope with any legal subject. The court remanded to allow the district court can take evidence and determine Davis’s abilities. View "Davis v. Foster" on Justia Law

Carmody worked for the University of Illinois for 25 years until he was fired for reasons involving a security breach of the university’s email system. The breach was connected to a state court lawsuit Carmody was pursuing against a university professor, alleging that the professor had assaulted him. Carmody says that he discovered several printed emails, contradicting affidavits filed in the case, in the newspaper box outside his home. Carmody gave the emails to his lawyer. After unsuccessfully appealing his discharge, Carmody filed, claiming violations of the Due Process Clause and an Illinois statute designed to protect whistle-blowers. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part, stating that Carmody has plausibly alleged that his pre-termination opportunity to be heard was meaningless because he could not answer the university’s crucial questions or respond to its accusations without violating a state court order that required him not to discuss the subject. The university fired Carmody on the same day the state court modified its order to allow him to respond to the charges. Carmody also alleged that he was actually fired based in part on a charge for which he had no prior notice and opportunity to be heard. View "Carmody v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of IL" on Justia Law

The major political parties in Marion County, Indiana followed a tradition of “slating” candidates that have the financial and organizational backing of party leadership in the primaries. Indiana enacted an “anti-slating” statute, prohibiting distribution of a list endorsing multiple political candidates during a primary election unless all such candidates have given written consent, Ind. Code 3-14-1-2(a). More than 10 years ago, that law was challenged as violating the First Amendment, resulting in a federal injunction against its future enforcement and a consent decree in which all parties stipulated and the court declared that the law was facially unconstitutional. The Marion County Election Board was a defendant, but nonetheless enforced the statute against a candidate running for state representative in the 2012 primary. That candidate sought an injunction. The district court dismissed the case under the “Younger” abstention doctrine, citing a still-ongoing Election Board investigation. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Election Board’s investigation is too preliminary a proceeding to warrant Younger abstention, at least in light of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision, Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs. Even if Younger abstention were theoretically available, the previous final federal judgment against the Election Board would amount to an extraordinary circumstance making Younger abstention inappropriate. View "Mulholland v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd." on Justia Law