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

Guzman-Cordoba and Alvarado-Santiago participated in an extensive drug trafficking organization operating from Indianapolis and Chicago. Guzman-Cordoba was a drug courier, drug seller, and stash house guard; Alvarado-Santiago laundered the drug proceeds by wiring large sums from the Indianapolis grocery store that he managed to California and Mexico. Nine defendants were indicted. Guzman-Cordoba presented a duress defense, arguing that she had been forced to join the organization through violence and threats of violence to herself and her family. Alvarado-Santiago argued that he did not know that the money he had sent to California and Mexico was drug money. A jury convicted Guzman-Cordoba of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine and convicted Alvarado-Santiago of conspiracy to launder money.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court erred in limiting the evidence Guzman-Cordoba attempted to introduce regarding her duress defense, erred in instructing the jury on that defense, and erred in ordering her to forfeit $10,000 in cash that was found at a stash house. The court rejected Alvarado-Santiago’s argument that the district court erred in only admitting a portion of his post-arrest statement, in admitting a statement by Guzman-Cordoba without limiting the jury’s ability to consider that evidence against him, and in giving the jury an instruction on deliberate avoidance of knowledge, the “ostrich instruction.” View "United States v. Alvarado-Santiago" on Justia Law

Ashland, Wisconsin police found Strobel passed out in his car beside of the road. A search of Strobel’s vehicle uncovered methamphetamine and resulted in state drug charges. Months later, Ashland police again found Strobel passed out in his car in a parking lot. A search of his car uncovered a firearm, marijuana, and paraphernalia. At the time, Strobel was out on bail. Strobel pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1),. At his sentencing hearing, he raised no objections to the conditions of supervised release proposed in the PSR and waived a full reading of those conditions. The court nevertheless discussed some aspects of the conditions, then imposed explicitly the term of supervised release but neglected to impose explicitly the conditions of supervised release. Later, the court issued its written judgment, which included all the conditions of supervised release recommended by the PSR.Strobel argued that the court’s failure to impose explicitly the conditions of supervised release during the sentencing hearing renders the written judgment inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement, requiring the vacation of his sentence and remand for a complete resentencing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his below-guidelines sentence of one year and one day, to run consecutively with Strobel’s state sentence, finding no impermissible inconsistency between the court’s oral pronouncement and its written judgment. View "United States v. Strobel" on Justia Law

Hall filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition in the Southern District of Indiana while incarcerated at a facility operated by the federal Bureau of Prisons in that district. Hall was later transferred to a federal prison in the Middle District of Florida. The Indiana district court concluded that it had lost jurisdiction over the petition, and transferred Hall’s case to Florida.The Seventh Circuit granted Hall a writ of mandamus, directing the Indiana court to rescind the transfer and return the case to Indiana. When the government moves a habeas petitioner after she properly files a petition naming her immediate custodian, the district court retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction who has the legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release. Hall filed in the correct court and named his immediate custodian; there is a respondent within the jurisdiction of the original court that has the authority to comply with any order that may issue. The Bureau of Prisons has been and remains Hall’s ultimate custodian; the Bureau can take any necessary action. Mandamus is the proper vehicle for review of a transfer decision, including transfers of a habeas corpus proceeding. Hall did not need to show prejudice before pursuing his venue challenge. View "Hall v. Hanlon" on Justia Law

In 2016, Nebinger pleaded guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The Probation Office determined that he qualified as an armed career criminal, based on prior convictions for Illinois residential burglary, drug possession with intent to deliver, and aggravated battery, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), which changed his sentencing exposure from a 10-year maximum sentence to a 15-year minimum sentence. The court held that his burglary conviction was an improper ACCA predicate and imposed a 10-year sentence. On remand, in light of a Seventh Circuit holding that the Illinois residential burglary statute corresponds to ACCA generic burglary, the court increased his sentence to 15 years.The Seventh Circuit remanded. While this litigation was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Illinois residential burglary is not an ACCA predicate. The Supreme Court’s 2019 "Rehaif" holding that the government must prove that the defendant knew that he fell within one of the categories of people who are not entitled to possess guns does not invalidate Nebinger's guilty plea. The knowledge element requires only that the defendant knew, at the time he possessed the firearm, that he was a felon; he did not also need to know that his status prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Neither Neblinger's indictment nor the government’s proffered factual basis for the conviction mentioned Nebinger’s knowledge of his status but Nebinger cannot establish prejudice. He admitted to six prior felony convictions at his plea colloquy. View "United States v. Nebinger" on Justia Law

Williams has been seeking release since he began serving his 2013 18‐year sentence for robbery and brandishing a firearm, contending that his guilty plea was involuntary. In 2020, Williams asked the warden to move for his compassionate release, arguing that the judge’s role in his plea negotiations was an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for relief, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The warden never responded. Weeks later, Williams moved the district court for compassionate release on the same ground. Court-appointed counsel filed an amended motion, advancing a different ground: the COVID‐19 pandemic and Williams’s risk of exposure stemming from his role as a prison chapel usher. The government opposed the motion on the merits and argued that Williams had not met the statute’s exhaustion requirement. The district court denied the motion on the merits, noting that Williams admitted that he did not suffer from any significant medical conditions that might increase his COVID-19 risk.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, also concluding that Williams failed to exhaust his Bureau of Prisons remedies. Exhaustion is a mandatory, claim‐processing rule and must be enforced when properly invoked. An inmate is required to present the same or similar ground for compassionate release in a request to the Bureau as in a motion to the court; any contrary approach would undermine the purpose of exhaustion—to provide the Bureau with information necessary to move for release on a defendant’s behalf. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Eagan, an Illinois Department of Corrections inmate, suffers from mental illnesses including depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. On November 30, 2014, Eagan engaged in self-harming behaviors while under suicide watch. Eagan brought a 42 U.S.C 1983, claiming violations of the Eighth Amendment by medical and custodial staff at Pontiac Correctional Center. The district court denied his motions to recruit and appoint counsel for him, then granted the defendants summary judgment.The Seventh Circuit vacated in part. In evaluating the motion to recruit counsel, the district court departed significantly from circuit precedent. Eagan has established that, but for the court's error, there is a reasonable likelihood that the assistance of counsel would have altered the outcome of the summary judgment motion with respect to Eagan’s claims based on the physician's decisions. The alleged "decision" to leave Eagan with significant, prolonged pain in order to teach him a lesson about the consequences of self-destructive behavior does not involve a mere choice of medical remedies; the court noted the lack of evidence with respect to the allegation. Eagan has not established, however, that there is a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome with respect to the officer defendants. The record clearly supports summary judgment in their favor. View "Eagan v. Dempsey" on Justia Law

Gacho is serving a life sentence for two 1982 kidnapping-murders. Cook County Judge Maloney presided in his case. For years, Maloney had solicited cash for acquittals. He came down hard on defendants who did not pay. Gacho was tried jointly with Titone. Titone opted for a bench decision, having paid Maloney $10,000 for an acquittal. As federal investigators began closing in, Maloney reneged and found Titone guilty. The jury returned a guilty verdict against Gacho. After Maloney was indicted, Titone won a new trial based on judicial bias, but Gacho’s post-conviction proceedings dragged on for decades. In 2016 the Illinois Appellate Court rejected his due-process claim, reasoning that Gacho needed to prove that the judge was actually biased against him and had not done so.The Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Evidence that the presiding judge was actually biased is sufficient to establish a due-process violation but is not necessary. Constitutional claims of judicial bias also have an objective component: the reviewing court must determine whether the judge’s conflict of interest created a constitutionally unacceptable likelihood of bias. Ignoring that objective test was contrary to Supreme Court precedent. The acute conflict between Maloney’s duty of impartiality and his personal interest in avoiding criminal liability created a constitutionally unacceptable likelihood of compensatory bias in Gacho’s case. View "Gacho v. Wills" on Justia Law

Saunders pleaded guilty to dealing in firearms without a license and possessing a firearm as a felon. Saunders, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in January 2020, asked the court for compassionate release or, alternatively, to transfer him to home confinement in June 2020. Saunders cited “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” based on his serious risk from the novel coronavirus, given his history of chronic bronchitis, type 2 diabetes, blood clots, a heart attack, other heart problems, diabetic neuropathy, and hypertension, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).The district court denied the motion, finding that the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors weighed against release because firearms trafficking is a serious crime that fuels Chicago's ongoing gun violence and Saunders had served only 19 months (including time served before sentencing) of his 60-month sentence. Saunders had not demonstrated that the Bureau of Prisons was unable to control the spread of COVID-19. The court recommended that the Bureau of Prisons place him in a medical facility, and it did so.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court did not abuse its broad discretion in finding that the section 3553(a) factors weighed against release despite the health threat that Saunders faces. Courts are not compelled to release every prisoner with extraordinary and compelling health concerns. The court lacked authority to change Saunders’s place of imprisonment and did not err by declining to review his request for home confinement. View "United States v. Saunders" on Justia Law

McIntosh sued Wexford, a private company that provides prison health care, and jail officials for acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, 42 U.S.C. 1983. McIntosh alleged that a nurse funneled him unprescribed medication and that staff members failed to prevent him from attempting suicide after he became addicted to the painkillers and suffered from acute mental illness. McIntosh was then a pretrial detainee; his claim arose not under the Eighth Amendment,, but under the Due Process Clause. McIntosh was required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act to exhaust all available administrative remedies. McIntosh claims he timely filed grievances as prescribed by the jail’s procedures but that Sergeant Strubberg told him that the internal administrative process was on hold pending the outcome of a criminal investigation into how he had obtained large quantities of unprescribed pain medication. Wexford and the jail officials claim that McIntosh submitted no grievances. The district court referred the case to a magistrate, who heard testimony from McIntosh and Sergeant Strubberg of the St. Clair County Jail. McIntosh supported his testimony with two affidavits from fellow inmates. The magistrate accepted McIntosh’s version of events. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment.The Seventh Circuit vacated. The district court erred in rejecting the magistrate’s recommended finding without holding a new hearing upon which to base its own credibility determinations, given that witness credibility weighed heavily in the exhaustion-of-remedies inquiry. View "McIntosh v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law

While incarcerated, Howell tore his medial meniscus cartilage and his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Five months later, he had surgery to repair the meniscus. It was another 20 months before Howell had surgery to reconstruct his ACL, despite Howell’s continuing pain and efforts to have the surgery sooner. While his requests for the ACL surgery were still being rejected, Howell filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations. A jury ruled in favor of the physician but against Wexford, a private company that provides medical services at the prison. The court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of Wexford.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence about Wexford’s treatment of other incarcerated people. Howell did not show that their situations were fairly comparable to his. The court also did not err in granting Wexford’s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law. Howell blamed his pain and delayed surgery on Wexford’s “collegial review process,” which requires an off-site Wexford physician to review and approve an on‐site Wexford physician’s recommendation that an incarcerated person be referred to an off‐site healthcare provider. The collegial review process is not unconstitutional on its face, and Howell did not offer evidence that would let a reasonable jury find that the collegial review process caused any violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. View "Larry Howell v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc." on Justia Law