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

A kitchen supervisor directed Balle, an Illinois state prisoner, to carry near-boiling water across a wet, damaged floor in a plastic five-gallon bucket. His foot caught in a hole, and he fell down. The water splashed on him and caused severe burns. Balle sued several prison officials, claiming they violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to the dangerous kitchen conditions. The district court dismissed some of Balle’s claims at the pleading stage and granted summary judgment on the others.The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. The record lacks sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to the subjective knowledge of two defendants. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Balle, a reasonable jury could conclude that the kitchen conditions represented an objectively serious danger to inmates, but gaps in the record prevent a jury from inferring that the two actually knew about the conditions that made the kitchen seriously dangerous–that inmates had to carry scalding water across the damaged floor. The court reversed in part, reinstating the claim against the kitchen supervisor, who required the inmates to carry the scalding water. The court affirmed the denial of a motion to recruit counsel. View "Balle v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Hartleroad responded to an online post soliciting persons interested in participating in sexual conduct with minors. The author (McCarty, an FBI agent) claimed to be engaged in sexual relations with his 14-year-old stepdaughter. Hartleroad agreed to a Skype meeting, during which Hartleroad would view McCarty engaging in sexual conduct with the minor. McCarty suggested that Hartleroad direct the sexual conduct. Hartleroad sent McCarty a photograph of a child on which he had ejaculated, drafted a script of sexual conduct he expected, and sent it to McCarty. McCarty reminded Hartleroad that the fictitious minor was under age. Hartleroad responded, “It’s cool” and joined the Skype call. McCarty then claimed his wife had returned. McCarty later posted similar messages. Hartleroad reinitiated contact, admitting he knew she was a minor but “would still love to do Skype” and “direct.”Hartleroad was charged with attempting to sexually exploit a child, 18 U.S.C. 2251, for “attempting to employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, and coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction, or a live visual depiction.” The jury received a similar instruction but was told Hartleroad must have acted for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct. The court of appeal affirmed Hartleroad’s conviction, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, that the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment, and that the indictment charged conduct not prohibited under section 2251(a). View "United States v. Hartleroad" on Justia Law

Marvin’s mother called the police to perform a wellness check; she thought Marvin, age 21, was suicidal. St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Deputies arrived at Marvin’s home and found his mother in the driveway with a bleeding lip. She stated that Marvin had hit her with a chair. The officers approached the house to speak with Marvin, who declined to exit the house. During the confrontation, the deputies saw Marvin’s father remove a box cutter from Marvin’s pocket. They pulled him from the doorway and wrestled him to the ground. While he resisted, they tased him twice and struck him several times. Marvin sued the deputies for unlawful entry and excessive force. Marvin admitted that he was uncooperative but claimed he was not threatening or violent and that he suffered a concussion and a broken toe.Marvin brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the deputies for unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the unlawful entry claims against Officer Corban, who had not helped pull Marvin from his house, and the excessive force claims against Officer Lawson-Rulli, who was not involved in tasing or hitting Marvin. Corban and Holcomb’s use of force was reasonable as a matter of law. The court also affirmed a defense verdict on Marvin’s unlawful entry claims against Holcomb and Lawson-Rulli. View "Marvin v. Holcomb" on Justia Law

Sorensen's friend Berg told Sorensen to drive a Suburu and follow him. Sorensen drove the Subaru but got lost and slept in the Subaru, waking up the next day. Sorensen then picked up Charles and subsequently noticed a handgun in the driver-side door. He and Charles both had felony records. He drove to a Goodwill parking lot, thinking that there was a drop box for disposing of illegal items without police involvement. He exited the car with the gun. In the meantime, police had received a report that the Subaru was stolen, containing a loaded revolver and ammunition. Officers discovered the Subaru and arrested Charles. Sorensen heard Charles talking to the officers, panicked, and hid the gun on a shelf in the Goodwill store. A Goodwill employee notified officers that a man (Sorensen) had been hiding in a maintenance closet and ran out of the store upon being discovered. Officers arrested Sorensen with the Subaru keys on his person. Sorensen showed them the location of the gun. Officers found the loaded firearm; there were many people, including children, in the store.Charged under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Sorenson sought to present an innocent possession defense. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, noting that circuit precedent does not recognize an innocent possession defense to section 922(g)(1) and that, even under a broad interpretation of that defense, Sorenson would not qualify. He did not take reasonable steps to turn over the firearm to law enforcement directly or through a third party. View "United States v. Sorensen" on Justia Law

Springfield Officer Weiss obtained a warrant to search Outland’s person and residence for heroin and drug paraphernalia. Another officer conducted a traffic stop and search, discovered drug paraphernalia, read Outland his Miranda rights, and began transporting him to a DEA facility. Outland collapsed; his face and coat were covered in a white substance (heroin). The officer drove Outland to the emergency room. He was unresponsive when triaged at 10:46 a.m. Hospital staff began administering medications. Around 11:30 a.m., Outland passed swallowing tests. Although he continued to appear drowsy and had apneic episodes, he was generally alert and oriented; his “mentation” was “improved significantly.” He was placed on a Narcan drip, awaiting an ICU bed. At regular intervals, staff described Outland as alert, awake, and oriented. Weiss arrived around 1:00 p.m. The officer assigned to Outland stated that Outland had asked to speak with Weiss. Outland stated his name and date of birth. Weiss read him his Miranda rights and confirmed that he understood his rights. Outland made several incriminating statements about trafficking in heroin.Outland was charged with distributing and conspiring to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)–(C), 846. On remand, the district court rejected his arguments that he was so intoxicated as to render his statement involuntary and was unable to voluntarily and knowingly waive his Miranda rights because of the medications. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress. View "United States v. Outland" on Justia Law

An investigation of an Indianapolis drug trafficking organization led by Trice led to the indictments of Trice and many of his associates, including McClure and Payne. Officers intercepted a call between McClure and Trice during which they spoke in coded language suggestive of a drug deal. Officers later observed the two men meeting with Trice and pursued Payne in a high-speed chase during which he threw a sock containing 214.2 grams of methamphetamine out of his car window. Payne and McClure later discussed these events in detail on a recorded jail call.Both were convicted of purchasing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine from Trice for distribution, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting "Batson" arguments that the government impermissibly struck a Black potential juror and that the government’s explanation, that the potential juror had a brother with a drug dealing conviction, was pretext because some white jurors who were not stricken also had relatives who had been involved with drugs. The court upheld the district court’s decision to permit Detective Hart to offer both expert and lay opinions at trial, rejecting an argument that the court failed to adequately instruct the jury as to his dual-role testimony. The evidence supporting their convictions was legally sufficient. View "United States v. McClure" on Justia Law

In 2012, Horton was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm crimes. Horton had been convicted of four prior state drug felonies. The court imposed three concurrent life sentences. Horton’s direct appeal and collateral relief motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, failed. Under 2255(h) a successive motion is permitted only if it contains “newly discovered evidence” of innocence or is based on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” Horton filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, citing the “saving clause,” 28 U.S.C. 2255(e); a 2241 motion “shall not be entertained” unless the remedy by motion under 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”The Seventh Circuit previously held (Davenport) that 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective”— and 2241 is available—when the limits on successive 2255 motions bar relief and the prisoner’s claim is based on a new interpretation of a criminal statute that was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent. Horton's Davenport claim challenged his sentences based on the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision.In the interim, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Hendrix, (2022): The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy 2255’s conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all." The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, abrogating Davenport. View "Horton v. Lovett" on Justia Law

Sanders was convicted in 2006 of firearms offenses. The court imposed an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on three prior convictions, including one for Illinois residential burglary. His direct appeal and 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for collateral relief failed. Sanders has three times unsuccessfully sought permission to file a successive 2255 motion. A successive motion is permitted only if it contains “newly discovered evidence” of innocence or is based on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.”Sanders filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition, citing the “saving clause.” 28 U.S.C. 2255(e); A federal prisoner’s 2241 motion “shall not be entertained” unless the remedy by motion under 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Seventh Circuit precedent (Davenport) applied the saving-clause gateway to habeas claims premised on a new interpretation of a criminal statute that was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent. Sanders’s Davenport claim challenged his ACCA-enhanced sentence based on the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision.The district judge denied relief. The Supreme Court held, in Jones v. Hendrix, (2022): The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy the 2255 conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, abrogating Davenport. View "Sanders v. Joseph" on Justia Law

While serving a 55-year sentence for murder, Love assaulted a correctional officer, resulting in state convictions for felony battery. The Indiana Department of Correction also found Love guilty of violating prison rules and imposed sanctions including revocation of 5,700 days of his accrued good time credit, which extended Love’s release date by more than 15 years. Love unsuccessfully pursued prison appeals. The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Love procedurally defaulted his constitutional claims and forfeited them by failing to present them in administrative proceedings or the district court.One argument concerned Executive Directive 17-09, under which the Department must revoke all accrued good time credit from inmates found guilty of qualifying offenses. There is no additional hearing; the inmate is not provided an opportunity to argue why revocation of less time is appropriate. Love argued that the Department cannot, consistent with due process, predetermine how it will use its discretionary power over sanctions without first considering arguments in mitigation. Love also argued that Directive 17-09 is facially arbitrary in tying punishment to the amount of good time credit an inmate has rather than the severity of his misconduct. Love offered two examples where other inmates presumably should have been punished in accordance with the Directive but were allegedly shown leniency instead. View "Love v. Vanihel" on Justia Law

In 2007, Hogsett was convicted of crimes, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court found that Hogsett was an armed career criminal, with three prior convictions for violent felonies, and sentenced him to 295 months. In 2021, the Supreme Court (Borden) interpreted “violent felony” in 924(e) to exclude crimes that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness. Hogsett sought to challenge his sentence under Borden. To collaterally attack a conviction or sentence, a federal prisoner files a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, not a habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2241. Hogsett had filed a 2255 motion in 2010. A prisoner can only file another 2255 motion in two circumstances: newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish innocence or a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Hogsett argued that he was eligible to file under 2255(e), the “saving clause,” which applies when “the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”The Seventh Circuit ordered the dismissal of Hogsett’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court’s intervening Jones holding: “The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy” 2255(h)’s requirements “does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause … he cannot bring it at all.” Borden is a statutory interpretation decision. View "Hogsett v. Lillard" on Justia Law