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

From 2006 until he was fired in 2011, Chrzanowski was an assistant state’s attorney. In 2011, a special prosecutor began investigating Chrzanowski’s boss, Bianchi. Bianchi allegedly had improperly influenced cases involving his relatives and political allies. Under subpoena, Chrzanowski testified before a grand jury, and later, again under subpoena, he testified at Bianchi’s trial. A few months later, Chrzanowski was interrogated by Bianchi and fired. Chrzanowski believed that the firing was retaliation for his testimony and filed suit, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights and state statutes. The district court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims, finding that First Amendment protections did not apply because the testimony was “pursuant to [his] official duties” and, in the alternative, that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, because any First Amendment protections were not “clearly established” at the time. The Seventh Circuit reversed. When Chrzanowski spoke out about his supervisors’ potential or actual wrongdoing, he was speaking outside the duties of employment. Providing eyewitness testimony regarding potential wrongdoing was never part of what Chrzanowski was employed to do; his rights were clearly established at all relevant times. Unlike restrictions on speech made pursuant to official duties, punishment for subpoenaed testimony chills civic discourse “in significant and pernicious ways.” View "Chrzanowski v. Bianchi" on Justia Law

KME and GTT are competitors in the specialized market for devices that permit emergency vehicles to send a signal that preempts traffic lights and allows the vehicle to pass through an intersection with, rather than against, the light. One system relies on optical signals and one uses GPS signals. GTT’s optical products are called “Opticom.” In 2010, GTT filed a patent infringement suit against KME; KME filed a separate suit against GTT. In 2011, KME twice sued, challenging the New York Department of Transportation’s award of traffic‐preemption contracts to GTT vendors. In 2012 KME sued, alleging that GTT violated antitrust laws by improperly interfering with competitive bidding on public contracts and engaging in monopolistic activity similar to illegal tying, claiming that GTT improperly persuades agencies to specify Opticom technology when drafting public contract requirements and then falsely informs those agencies that Opticom is no longer available and offers to supply a “dual” unit with both optical and GPS technology. The district court dismissed for improper venue, reasoning that GTT did not reside in the district and that none of the events at issue took place there. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, after exploring the “surprisingly complex” relation between general principles of personal jurisdiction and venue and the Clayton Act’s special jurisdiction and venue provisions. View "KM Enters. Inc. v. Global Traffic Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

In December, 2005, Chicago police officers Malaniuk and Shields arrested then-14-year-old Barber. Barber claims that the arrest was without probable cause and that Malaniuk used excessive force in shoving him into a holding cell, causing him to strike his head on a hard surface. The officers deny those allegations and say that the head injury occurred because Barber was intoxicated and fell over his own feet. In Barber’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1982, a jury sided with the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding merit in Barber’s claims that the district court erred when it allowed defense counsel to cross-examine him about a subsequent arrest for underage drinking and about his intervening felony conviction. View "Terrence Barber v. City of Chicago, et al" on Justia Law

Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana is a municipal corporation that operates a major hospital and other facilities, including a health center operated in partnership with Citizens Health to serve the medically under-served population in Indianapolis. The health center was funded in part by a Section 330 Grant, awarded by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Section 330 grants fund qualifying health centers that provide primary health care services to medically under-served populations, 42 U.S.C. 254b. A In 2012, Health and Hospital decided to terminate the partnership with Citizens and relinquish the federal grant, which still had several years of funding remaining. Citizens sued Health and Hospital, HRS, and others in an effort to retain the grant funds. The district court granted defendants summary judgment, concluding that Citizens had no contractual, statutory, or constitutionally cognizable interest in the grant. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Health and Hospital was the grantee; Citizens had no constitutionally-protected entitlement to the grant; and the terms of the contract between Health and Hospital and Citizens clear; there was no obligation to renew. View "Citizens Health Corp. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Gary and Deborah divorced in 2003 and agreed to a marital settlement. Gary purchased an annuity, to pay him $200 per month until his death; the settlement required him to pay her “$200 per month…in lieu of her interest in [the annuity].” Two years later, Gary filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and asked the court to discharge financial obligations to his ex-wife under the settlement. Gary attempted to blackmail Deborah into cooperation, using nude photos of her sister as a child. He is now in prison for bankruptcy fraud and possession of child pornography. 18 U.S.C. 152(6), 2252A(a)(5)(B). Deborah and the bankruptcy trustee agreed that she had an unsecured claim for $158,455.63, including $12,400 representing 62 monthly payments that the trustee had received under the annuity. Gary owned the annuity, so these payments were part of the bankruptcy estate and their inclusion in her claim was a mistake. The trustee successfully moved the bankruptcy judge to permit transfer to Deborah of $1000 in annuity payments collected since settling her claim, and to direct the company to make future payments to her directly. The Seventh Circuit reversed, directing the court either to order Deborah to return the $1000 or order the trustee to deduct it from her claim and to instruct the company to resume making payments to the trustee. View "Peel v. Peel" on Justia Law

Six-year-old D.B. and five-year-old twins C.C. and her brother W.C., were “playing doctor” in D.B.’s backyard when the twins’ mother arrived. She interpreted D.B.’s conduct as a sexual assault of her daughter and reported to the Department of Social Services. The Sheriff’s Department also responded. After an aggressive investigation, the District Attorney filed a petition alleging that D.B. had committed first-degree sexual assault and was in need of public protection or services. The petition was not adjudicated; the case was closed by consent decree. D.B.’s parents filed a civil-rights suit, alleging that county officials overzealously investigated and maliciously prosecuted D.B. They asserted a “class of one” equal-protection claim, noting that the twins engaged in the same behavior as D.B., but the twins’ father is a “high-ranking local political figure.” The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Allegations of improper subjective motive are not enough to state a class-of-one equal-protection claim; a complaint must allege sufficient facts to plausibly show that the plaintiff was treated differently from others similarly situated and that the discriminatory treatment was wholly arbitrary and irrational. Here, there was an objective rational basis for disparate treatment. The twins’ mother witnessed D.B.’s conduct and reported it; there was no adult witness to the twins’ behavior. View "Kurtis B. v. Kopp" on Justia Law

McGee was convicted of rape, home invasion, aggravated battery, and burglary, and was incarcerated in Illinois from 1980 until 2005, when, pursuant to the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, 725 ILCS 207/1, he was civilly detained and placed in the Rushville facility. In 2001, while serving his criminal sentence, McGee was diagnosed with liposarcoma cancer and underwent surgery to remove a tumor and adjacent muscle tissue in his right thigh. Since then he has undergone extensive treatment, biopsies, and other procedures to prevent or detect possible recurrence. McGee alleges that he suffers from edema and “neuropathic pain” in his legs as a result of the cancer treatments. Rushville has a policy, requiring detainees who are transported outside of the facility to wear metal leg irons. McGee complained several times to his treating physician about being required to wear restraints, but was never exempted. He was, on occasion, denied use of a wheelchair, and suffered cuts. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants in McGee’s action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that 23 state officials, employees, and private medical professionals were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "McGee v. Adams" on Justia Law

Hurt was a retail seller of crack cocaine, assisted by Holcomb and Clardy. The government, led to the group by a customer (Pickett), believed that Lee was one of Hurt’s suppliers. Controlled purchases, along with discovery of a distribution-sized quantity of crack cocaine in a car driven by Lee, led to the arrest and indictment of Lee, Hurt, Clardy, and Holcomb. Only Lee went to trial, after initially pleading guilty to conspiracy and possession, on the understanding that the more favorable statutory penalties put into place by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, would apply at his sentencing. The district court had applied the FSA in sentencing Holcomb before Lee pleaded guilty. Lee nonetheless withdrew his plea and was tried twice. Convicted under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, he was sentenced to a prison term of 20 years. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence proof that Lee had previously been convicted of possessing cocaine base, Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

SVT hired Morgan, an African-American, to work as a security guard at one of its Ultra grocery stores. Morgan had previously worked security for a grocery store that previously occupied the location and at Home Depot. Morgan was working about 40 hours a week at Home Depot and 20 to 30 hours a week at Ultra when he was involved in an incident involving a white manager at Ultra, who had taken a newspaper without paying. Morgan was ultimately fired. He sued, alleging violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment to the company. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the circumstances surrounding Morgan’s firing, did not, in themselves, raise a plausible inference of race discrimination. Although Morgan argued that the timing of his firing was “suspicious,” given his documented failure to perform theft stops, prior warnings about the lack of theft stops, and SVT’s stringent enforcement of its anti-shoplifting olicies, the court properly concluded that suspicious timing alone was insufficient to create a genuine dispute over whether Morgan was fired for failing to meet legitimate job expectations or for insidious racial reasons. View "Marcus Morgan v. SVT, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Abdoulaye, a citizen of Niger, entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa in 2002 and, several months later, sought asylum, withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1231 and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he feared being sentenced to death or killed due to his planning of a military mutiny that was executed in 2002. Abdoulaye had been a corporal in the Nigerien military and a supporter of a left-wing political party loyal to the former president. . The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected the application, based on a finding that Abdoulaye’s participation in the mutiny amounted to “terrorist activity” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, rendering him ineligible for any form of relief. The Board also found that Abdoulaye failed to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Niger. The Seventh Circuit denied relief, finding that the Board’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence. View "Abdoulaye v. Holder" on Justia Law