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

Kramer was the U.S. open class offshore powerboat champion but he was also a successful drug lord and money launderer who made millions smuggling vast quantities of marijuana in the 1980s. After his arrest, he tried to escape prison hanging off the skids of a helicopter. He was convicted in Illinois for drug and criminal enterprise offenses and in Florida under RICO; $60 million and $50 million forfeiture judgments were entered against him as part of his sentences.Over a decade later, Kramer asked the district court to find a 2003 settlement agreement invalid and to account for all property seized by the government and return to him the value exceeding $60 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court order that granted an accounting of the amounts collected on his drug conviction forfeiture judgment, determined that approximately $2 million had been forfeited under the 2003 settlement agreement between the government and certain entities, and credited the settlement amount toward Kramer’s drug conviction forfeiture judgment. “Instead of accepting Kramer’s invitation to wade into a complex multidistrict financial assessment involving numerous parties, governmental offices, settlement agreements, and legal proceedings, the district court sensibly limited the accounting to what was owed and collected” toward the drug forfeiture judgment entered in Illinois. View "United States v. Kramer" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit upheld the bankruptcy court's ruling that the costs of plaintiff's attorney disciplinary proceedings imposed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court were not dischargeable under a provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(7). The court explained that, although there are several types of proceedings in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court may order costs, see Wis. S.C.R. 22.24(1), attorney discipline uniquely requires a "finding of misconduct" as a precondition for doing so. The court stated that the structure of Rule 22.24(1m) unambiguously singles out attorney discipline as a penal endeavor, and that conclusion has a statutory consequence under section 523(a)(7). Furthermore, the cost order amounts to compensation for actual pecuniary loss under section 523(a)(7). Finally, the court's conclusion that plaintiff's disciplinary costs are nondischaregable under section 523(a)(7) finds firm support in Supreme Court precedent and the court's own case law. View "Osicka v. Office of Lawyer Regulation" on Justia Law

DiDonato fell and seriously injured her head in the bathroom of Panatera’s home Panatera, a Chicago paramedic, found DiDonato disoriented and badly bleeding but allegedly only rinsed the blood from DiDonato’s head, wrapped it in a towel, moved her to his bed, and sexually assaulted her. When DiDonato regained consciousness the next afternoon, Panatera drove her home. DiDonato went to an emergency room. She had sustained head trauma and a concussion.DiDonato filed suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that Panatera violated her due process rights by failing to provide medical care, with state law claims for assault, battery, and negligence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of DiDonato’s section 1983 claim. DiDonato had to allege that a state actor failed to adhere to a duty to protect and care for a person with whom the state had a “special relationship.” States and municipalities are not in a “special relationship” with all residents and do not shoulder a constitutional duty to provide medical care to anyone needing help. There was no allegation that DiDonato was ever in the city’s care or custody. DiDonato also failed to plausibly allege that Panatera acted “under color of state law.” Section 1983 does not cover disputes between private citizens; an individual’s employment by the state does not render any and all action by that person state action. DiDonato’s need for help and medical care arose during entirely private interaction. View "Didonato v. Panatera" on Justia Law

Skaggs was charged with 12 counts related to his production and possession of child pornography, based on evidence found in thumb drives seized from him during a warrantless border search at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The district court denied a motion to suppress, convicted Skaggs of all counts. Believing a life sentence was mandatory because of his prior state conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor, the court sentenced him to life in prison.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. No court has ever required more than reasonable suspicion for a border search An investigation revealed that Skaggs had a prior sexual misconduct conviction; traveled abroad multiple times and was involved with overseas orphanages; posted suggestive pictures on Facebook of himself with young girls; was the director of Ukrainian Angels, whose name appeared to be borrowed from a well-known child pornography website; and was suspected of child sex tourism and traveling to Ukraine to meet minors. Skaggs lied during his customs interview, stating that he had no thumb drives with him. These facts, taken together, give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The district court said it would have imposed a life sentence in any event and discussed the section 3553(a) factors that supported the sentence, any error was harmless. View "United States v. Skaggs" on Justia Law

Wisconsin inmate Zimmerman filed a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Though “far from clear and very abbreviated,” the complaint seemed to contend that Corrections Officer Bornick had it out for him because of grievances Zimmerman had filed concerning Bornick. Zimmerman also seemed to allege that he had received an undeserved warning from Bornick, who also confiscated about $100 worth of Zimmerman’s property and issued a conduct report that led to 16 days of disciplinary confinement.The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) and determined that Zimmerman failed to state a claim; the complaint did not establish a causal relationship between Bornick’s actions and any protected speech. Deciding that any amendment to the complaint would be futile because Zimmerman’s allegations were thorough, the district court dismissed it with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit vacated. The district court was wrong not to dismiss the complaint but absent a clear indication of futility or some extraordinary circumstance, litigants, including prisoners, should have the opportunity to try again by filing an amended complaint. The district court may have held Zimmerman to a pleading standard beyond that required by the Federal Rules and, regardless, should have given him a second try. View "Zimmerman v. Bornick" on Justia Law

Bourke was exposed to fumes during his employment with the Veterans Administration. He received treatment at a VA hospital and contends that medical malpractice there caused him serious injuries. He sought compensation from the Department of Labor under the Federal Employees Compensation Act for on-the-job injuries and from the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for medical malpractice. The Department of Labor processed Bourke’s claim but found that he had not shown that his asserted injuries had been caused by exposure to fumes. The VA (handling the FTCA claim) concluded that, once Bourke applied to the Department of Labor, all other sources of relief were precluded. Bourke sued under the Tort Claims Act, conceding the Department of Labor’s conclusion that conditions at work did not cause the medical issues for which he was treated by the VA, and alleging medical malpractice.The district court rejected his complaint on the ground that the Federal Employees Compensation Act offers his sole avenue of relief.; once the Department of Labor adjudicates a claim, the applicant must accept the result because 5 U.S.C. 8116(c) forecloses other sources of relief and 5 U.S.C. 8128(b)(2) blocks judicial review of the Department’s decisions.The Seventh Circuit vacated. Bourke is not seeking judicial review of the Department of Labor’s decision. Someone who loses before the Department cannot contest that outcome in court but may pursue other remedies that are compatible with the Department’s views. View "Bourke v. United States" on Justia Law

Howell was convicted on two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to concurrent 96‐month terms. In 2020, the Seventh Circuit vacated one conviction and remanded. The 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) permits federal courts to conduct by video teleconference some criminal proceedings that otherwise require the defendant’s physical presence in court, including felony resentencing. The court must make certain findings; the defendant must consent after consulting with counsel.At a video conference status hearing attended by Howell, the court stated that it needed Howell’s consent to issue a CARES Act order for sentencing by video teleconference. The court delayed the resentencing to allow Howell’s counsel to confer with him. The court issued a CARES Act order saying that “Howell moved to proceed with a video‐conference resentencing,” and made the necessary findings. There is no record of that motion. During the hearing, Howell’s counsel acknowledged that she had had the opportunity to speak with Howell about the hearing. Neither Howell nor his counsel objected to the video teleconference hearing. The judge reimposed a 96‐month prison term. Howell had already served 96 months' imprisonment.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The record sufficiently indicated that Howell was informed his consent was required; that he conferred with his counsel; and that the judge, lawyers, and Howell proceeded with the understanding that Howell had consented to the video teleconference. View "United States v. Howell" on Justia Law

Ewing and Webster disputed debts they allegedly owed to debt‐collection companies. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, debt‐collection companies must report such disputes to credit reporting agencies, 15 U.S.C. 1692e(8), but the companies failed to do so. The plaintiffs sued separately, seeking damages. The companies prevailed at summary judgment. Both district courts determined that the companies’ mistakes were bona fide errors.In consolidated appeals, the Seventh Circuit first held that the plaintiffs suffered intangible, reputational injuries, sufficiently concrete for purposes of Article III standing; they have shown that their injury is related closely to the harm caused by defamation. The court affirmed as to Ewing and reversed as to Webster. In Ewing’s case, a receptionist accidentally forwarded Ewing’s faxed dispute letter to the wrong department. The company had reasonably adapted procedures; if its step‐by‐step fax procedures had been followed, the error would have been avoided. Unlike the one‐time misstep in Ewing, a lack of procedures invited the Webster error. Until debtors and their attorneys knew that the collection company no longer accepted disputes by fax, it was entirely foreseeable that it would continue receiving faxed disputes. There were no procedures to avoid the error that occurred. View "Webster v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC" on Justia Law

Sanders, a severely mentally ill inmate, has been in the custody of the Illinois Department of Correction since 2004. For eight years, he was in solitary confinement, where his mental health deteriorated. Sanders has attempted suicide and engaged in self-harm multiple times. He claims that self-mutilation was a pre-condition for solitary confinement inmates to speak with a mental health person. Sanders filed suit and applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which allows indigent prisoners to bring suits without prepaying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner who has three strikes—actions or appeals dismissed for being “frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim”—can only proceed without prepayment if he is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Sanders cited the “imminent danger exception.”The district court initially granted his IFP application but later revoked its grant, finding that none of Sanders’s allegations demonstrated that he was in imminent danger. The Seventh Circuit reinstated his IFP status. Sanders adequately alleged his belief that certain practices at the Pontiac Correctional Center would lead him to self-harm. The district court erroneously determined that the allegations were fraudulent and did so without explicitly considering whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate. View "Sanders v. Melvin" on Justia Law

Reynolds, born in 1992, graduated from high school and previously worked part-time in retail. Reynolds suffers from migraines, vertigo, and “major depressive disorder, recurrent moderate with anxious distress.” She applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2017. Reynolds testified that she suffers from back pain, vertigo, and migraines, and she cannot stand for more than 10 minutes. Her parents handle household chores. She has migraines every day. She stopped taking some prescription medications for her migraines because of the side effects. Reynolds quit her job at Walmart because of her migraines. Reynolds testified has never gone to an emergency room or crisis center for mental health treatment but suffers from anxiety around “more than five people.” She was taking medication for her mental health conditions.The ALJ concluded that Reynolds was not disabled under the Social Security Administration’s five-step method and that Reynolds had the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work with certain non-exertional limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial as supported by substantial evidence. The court rejected an argument that the ALJ erred by failing to include a qualitative interaction limitation in the residual functional capacity determination. No medical evidence called for a qualitative interaction limitation; the ALJ was not required to intuit such a limitation from the administrative record. View "Reynolds v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law