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

Bartholomew County, Indiana officials believe that Cary committed suicide. His son, Logan, believes that Cary was murdered by his wife and her sons. Contending that the Sheriff and his deputies have lost or destroyed evidence that would help Cary’s estate pursue claims against the putative murderers, Logan filed a civil-rights suit, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986. Logan purported to represent his father’s estate, but except for a brief time he has not been its administrator. The estate would not pursue litigation, but assigned Logan “[w]hatever interest the Estate of Cary A. Owsley has in the federal lawsuit.” The district court dismissed Logan’s suit for lack of standing, stating that Logan has not suffered any personal injury.The Seventh Circuit vacated. Logan asserts injury and seeks damages. Decedents’ relatives may have damages claims against tortfeasors. Logan also has the benefit of the assignment from the estate. Federal law permits assignees to sue on assignors’ claims. The district judge’s belief that the claim is not worth anything concerns the merits rather than subject-matter jurisdiction. The first issue on remand should be to decide whether an access-to-courts claim, the only thing covered by the assignment, can be based on an assertion that the defendants concealed or destroyed evidence that could have been relevant in state court. View "Owsley v. Gorbett" on Justia Law

In trials before the Supreme Court’s 2019 “Rehaif” decision, three defendants were separately convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which prohibits convicted felons and several other classes of people from possessing firearms or ammunition. Before Rehaif, federal courts held that section 922(g) required the government to prove a defendant knowingly possessed a firearm or ammunition, but not that the defendant knew he belonged to one of the prohibited classes. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that the statute requires the government to “show that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and also that he knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” On appeal, the defendants asserted a missing element in their indictments and jury instructions and a denied motion for a judgment of acquittal.Employing plain‐error review, the Seventh Circuit affirmed two sentences but vacated the third, based on a “Tapia error,” imposing a longer prison term for purposes of rehabilitation through prison programs. Rehaif does not impose a willfulness requirement on section 922(g) prosecutions. The court noted the important difference between requiring knowledge of status and knowledge of the criminal prohibition and reasoned that the Supreme Court would not have adopted the broader reading without saying so with unmistakable clarity. The court noted that none of the defendants objected to his indictment or his jury instructions and concluded that none of them were prejudiced by the omission of a reference to knowledge of his status. View "United States v. Jones" on Justia Law

G&S had a written contract to work as a representative for a manufacturer, R3. The critical term dealing with sales commissions did not show any agreement on commission rates. It said that the parties would try to agree on commission rates on a job-by-job, customer-by-customer basis. While the original 2011 “agreement to agree” would not have been enforceable by itself, the parties did later agree on commission rates for each customer and went forward with their business. In 2014, changes made by customers in their ordering procedures led to disputes about commissions.The district court granted summary judgment for R3, relying primarily on the original failure to agree on commission rates. The Seventh Circuit reversed. A reasonable jury could find that the later job-by-job commission agreements were governed by the broader terms of the original written contract. The rest of the case is “rife with factual disputes that cannot be resolved on summary judgment.” View "R3 Composites Corp. v. G&S Sales Corp." on Justia Law

Chen, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2004. A “Notice to Appear,” dated April 2010, did not include the time and place for a hearing, Immigration officials sent Chen another document, dated July 2010, with that information. Chen appeared and sought asylum; the request was denied as untimely. In 2018, the Supreme Court held (Pereira) that a Notice that omits the time and place of the hearing does not comply with 8 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(G)(i).Chen (untimely) moved to reopen her case to seek cancellation of removal, as an alien who has lived in the U.S. for a decade. Chen contended that, until the Pereira decision, she did not recognize that she might be eligible for that relief. An alien's accumulation of physical presence time is stopped by the commission of a crime or service of a Notice to Appear. Chen and her lawyer assumed that the April 2010 Notice stopped the accrual of time, but Chen argued that Pereira holds otherwise. The BIA denied the motion, reasoning that the required components of a Notice need not be in a single document if multiple documents collectively provide the required information; Pereira held that multiple notices cannot be combined with the effective date of the first document, but did not address what happens once all information has been provided. Time stops once the alien has all of the information required by statute. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Chen did not object to the charging documents for years, without any good excuse for delay. View "Chen v. Barr" on Justia Law

Withers trafficked women and girls for sex. After months of abuse, several victims were identified by law enforcement. Withers was arrested and charged with nine counts of sex trafficking. The government proposed jury instructions on four of those counts that would have allowed Withers to be found guilty if he either knew or recklessly disregarded that force, threats of force, or coercion would be used to cause the women to engage in commercial sex acts. The “recklessly disregarded” mens rea element was absent, however, from the superseding indictment against Withers. The district court ruled, and the parties agreed, that the jury instructions would not include that phrase. Nonetheless, at trial, the court’s instructions included this phrase, and neither the court nor the parties recognized the error. A jury found Withers guilty on all counts. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the four convictions that included inaccurate instructions. While the jury instructions were plainly wrong, the error did not affect Withers’ substantial rights or otherwise prejudice his trial. The “jury was presented with overwhelming evidence of Withers’ knowledge and more than sufficient facts to convict Withers of the offenses charged in the four challenged counts.” View "United States v. Withers" on Justia Law

Falls began serving supervised release after he was released from prison. Two years later, probation officer Hoepker filed a petition to revoke Falls’s supervised release, alleging that Falls committed the offense of attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. At Falls’s revocation hearing, the government presented Hoepker's testimony that she learned of the alleged criminal conduct from DEA Agent Neff and learned that Falls was in DEA custody. Hoepker had listened to an audio recording of a DEA interview and identified the voice of the person interviewed as Falls. Falls objected, unsuccessfully arguing that because the recording contained hearsay, FRCP 32.1(b)(2)(C) and Seventh Circuit precedent (Jordan) required the court to balance the government’s proffered reason for not calling the interviewing officer with Falls’s interest in confronting and cross-examining him. The government introduced the first 10 minutes of the recording. The court concluded that it was reliable and that it was more likely than not that Falls committed the attempted-possession-with-intent-to-distribute violation, resulting in a sentencing range of 46-57 months’ imprisonment.The Seventh Circuit affirmed his 57-month sentence. Jordan does not apply because the probative statements in the audio recording were Falls’s own non-hearsay statements. Falls has not shown that his interviewing officer was an “adverse witness” that Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) entitled him to question subject to an interest-of-justice determination. View "United States v. Falls" on Justia Law

Barr was charged with a fraudulent real-estate-selling scheme in Chicago. FBI officers discovered Barr was living in Saudi Arabia. Before they could get to Barr, Saudi Arabian officials detained him for unrelated conduct. Barr spent months in a Saudi Arabian prison. When he was released and returned to the U.S., he pled guilty to making false statements to a financial institution. He then unsuccessfully asked the court to allow more time for counsel to obtain government clearance and review classified materials, to dismiss the indictment, and to withdraw his plea. At his sentencing, Barr tried to argue that his time in Saudi Arabia should be a mitigating factor. The court disagreed and prevented Barr from advancing that argument. Barr unsuccessfully sought the judge’s recusal. The judge sentenced Barr to 87 months’ imprisonment.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Even if Barr’s U.S. crimes somehow led to his detention in Saudi Arabia, that detention time was not punishment for Barr’s U.S. crime; it was a consequence of Barr’s not paying his debts in Saudi Arabia and did not relate to any of the legitimate aims of sentencing. There was no reasonable probability that allegedly suppressed evidence about Barr’s detention in Saudi Arabia would have changed the result of Barr’s sentencing hearing. Essentially, Barr thought the government would not be able to prove as much loss, which would have produced a lower guidelines range; Barr presented no legitimate reason to withdraw his plea. View "United States v. Barr" on Justia Law

Cross unlawfully obtained $516,000 by opening accounts at out-of-state banks, then opening accounts at Illinois banks. He wrote checks on the out-of-state accounts and deposited them in his Illinois accounts, knowing that there were insufficient funds to cover those checks, then withdrew the money from the Illinois banks. He was charged with five counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1). After eight months, the court allowed his appointed attorney to withdraw. While represented by another attorney, Cross entered his guilty plea. Months later, the court allowed that attorney to withdraw, appointing a third counsel. Days later, Cross filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, which the court struck, advising Cross that the court would entertain only motions that had been filed by counsel.Days before his scheduled sentencing hearing, Cross nonetheless filed pro se: “Motion To Withdraw Guilty Plea,” “Motion To Terminate Counsel,” and “Motion To Dismiss Case Per A, Mauro, Violation.” At the sentencing hearing, the court gave Cross, his counsel and the government opportunities to address the motions. It denied the Motion to Terminate Counsel on the merits and denied the Motion to Dismiss because Cross had filed it pro se while represented by counsel. The court denied the Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea both on the merits and because Cross had filed it pro se while represented. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The court was within its discretion in denying the motions that were filed pro se when Cross was represented by competent counsel who had refused to file the same motions for cogent reasons. View "United States v. Cross" on Justia Law

Wisconsin inmate McCaa, pro se, claimed that prison officials violated Eighth Amendment rights by responding with deliberate indifference to his threats to commit suicide or to harm himself in other ways. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. In 2018, the Seventh Circuit ruled that in denying a fourth motion for recruitment of counsel, the district court had not addressed sufficiently McCaa’s ability to present his case himself in light of McCaa’s transfer to a different prison where he said he could not locate witnesses or obtain other discovery, as well as the effects of his fifth-grade reading level and serious mental illness. On remand, the district court considered the issue and reached the same decision to not attempt to recruit counsel.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the district judge’s "detailed and persuasive opinion." He complied with the remand mandate and did not abuse his discretion. The court noted that, on remand, McCaa did not renew his own efforts to obtain counsel; he was able to “send and receive correspondence, make copies, write motions and briefs, and perform legal research;” his reply in support of his renewed motion for counsel was impressive; and he had recently obtained a GED and now reads at a ninth-grade level. View "McCaa v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Hildreth, an inmate at an Illinois maximum-security prison, suffers from Parkinson’s disease. He takes a prescription medication, Mirapex, to manage his symptoms. As a specialty prescription, Mirapex was not kept in stock at the prison; it was filled by an outside pharmacy. The prison allows Hildreth to keep a monthly supply of Mirapex in his cell. To refill his prescription, Hildreth must submit a sticker within seven days of the end of the prescription. Hildreth usually receives his refill when he has three to five days of pills left. On three occasions Hildreth received his refill a few days late, causing him to experience withdrawal symptoms. His symptoms also render his handwriting illegible, so Hildreth uses a typewriter to draft documents. He requested to keep that typewriter in his cell, which the prison denied because it was considered contraband. The prison provided Hildreth with an assistant to help him draft documents and increased access to the library where he can use a typewriter. With those accommodations, Hildreth has not missed any court deadlines.Hildreth sued Wexford Health and jail administrators under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Hildreth has not shown medication delays were a widespread practice or custom at the prison; he received reasonable accommodations for his Parkinson’s disease, . View "Hildreth v. Butler" on Justia Law