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

In 2017, Dozier was indicted for conspiracy and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Under the Controlled Substances Act then in effect, Dozier faced increased penalties if he had a prior conviction for a “felony drug offense,” 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B)(viii)--a drug‐related offense “that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the United States or of a State.” Dozier had a 2006 conviction for unlawful possession of cocaine, a “state jail felony” punishable by imprisonment of six months to two years. In a plea bargain, the prosecutor agreed to a nine‐month sentence; Texas Penal Code 12.44(a) gives the judge discretion to punish a person convicted of a state jail felony with a period of confinement permissible for a Class A misdemeanor— a term not to exceed one year.Dozier pleaded guilty but objected to using the 2006 conviction to enhance his sentence. The judge imposed a 20-year sentence, rejecting Dozier’s argument that the Texas conviction was not a qualifying predicate because the terms of his plea agreement exposed him to confinement of not more than one year. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Dozier pleaded guilty to and was convicted of a two‐year state jail felony. It does not matter that the sentencing judge accepted the plea bargain and exercised the discretion conferred by state law to sentence Dozier as if he were a misdemeanant. View "United States v. Dozier" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the Seventh Circuit gave the appellants seven days to file amended jurisdictional statements. The court acknowledged its “reputation as a jurisdictional hawk.” In each of the cases, a magistrate judge issued the final judgment from which the appeal has been taken. Circuit Rule 28(a)(2)(v) requires an appellant in such a case to include in its jurisdictional statement information about the magistrate judge’s involvement and also “the dates on which each party consented in writing to the entry of final judgment by the magistrate judge.” The court cited Circuit Rule 28(a)(2)(v), and the Seventh Circuit Practitioner’s Handbook for Appeals (2019 ed.), which explicitly refers to the failure to provide dates of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge as one of the recurring problems that the court encounters when performing jurisdictional screening. View "Lowrey v. Tilden" on Justia Law

In 2011, Dotson was indicted for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. The indictment listed six prior felony convictions and alleged that Dotson qualified for the 15-year minimum sentence mandated in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The PSR identified three convictions as qualifying for ACCA enhancement (Indiana armed robbery, dealing in cocaine, and attempted robbery) but was silent on whether any of Dotson’s other convictions (Indiana burglary, marijuana possession, and theft and receipt of stolen property) qualified. Nobody raised the issue. The district court sentenced Dotson as a career offender to 188 months and denied his subsequent post-conviction petition, finding that Dotson had four qualifying ACCA predicates—the three originally designated as such in the PSR plus one for burglary. After the district court’s decision, one of the predicates the PSR originally determined qualified under ACCA (attempted robbery) was eliminated. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The government can save the enhanced sentence by substituting another of Dotson’s convictions—one listed in the PSR as part of Dotson’s criminal history but not designated as or found to be an ACCA predicate at sentencing. The court reasoned that the substituted conviction included in the indictment and the PSR and Dotson recognized in legal filings and apparently believed that his burglary conviction had served as an ACCA predicate at his sentencing. View "Dotson v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2004, Martinez was shot dead. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed Hartsfield's convictions for first-degree murder and home invasion. Hartsfield claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, insisting that he repeatedly told counsel that he wished to testify, that counsel asked his mother to “convince” him not to testify, and counsel told Hartsfield that he would “get his chance” when the judge admonished him about his right to testify, but the judge never did that. Hartsfield claims counsel “shushed” him. Hartsfield’s mother supported his statements. The Illinois court affirmed the dismissal of Hartsfield’s postconviction petition, applying the “Strickland” standard and finding that counsel made “a tactical decision,” that Hartsfield was aware that testifying was ultimately his decision, and that Hartsfield’s failure to contemporaneously assert his right barred his claim.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Hartsfield’s federal habeas petition, first agreeing that the “Strickland” standard applied to the allegation. Without clearly established federal law, it is not clear that the Illinois court unreasonably decided that Hartsfield did not meet his burden of proving that his attorney actually prohibited his testimony. It is not reasonably probable that his proposed testimony would have affected the verdict. Two eyewitnesses placed Hartsfield at the scene of the crime, armed with a weapon and a motive. Hartsfield’s comments later that night further implicated him. Hartsfield’s uncorroborated story, that he was alone, driving around during the time of the murder, is “little more than a generic denial of guilt," insufficient to establish prejudice. View "Hartsfield v. Dorethy" on Justia Law

Dorris, a company president, had Unum long-term disability insurance. Her endometriosis became disabling; Unum started paying her benefits in 2002. Later, Dorris was diagnosed with Lyme disease. By 2007, the Social Security Administration granted her disability benefits. To maintain Unum benefits after two years, an employee had to prove that she “cannot perform each of the material duties of any gainful occupation for which [she is] reasonably fitted” or that she is “[p]erforming at least one of the material duties" of any occupation and “[c]urrently earning at least 20% less" due to the disability. In 2015, Dorris told Unum that she was improving and had started golfing and volunteering. Dorris’s Lyme disease specialist indicated that Dorris still had major symptoms and could not work. Unum’s consulting physicians found no evidence of limitations that would preclude sedentary work nor of an active Lyme infection. Unum ended her benefits.In her Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B)) lawsuit, Dorris was denied permission to depose witnesses to clarify the administrative record. Dorris never sought further discovery; nor objected to the ruling. Unum rested on its physician’s conclusions that Dorris could perform the duties of a president. Dorris asserted, without evidence, that such jobs required “55–70 hours a week,” and focused on how little she did as a volunteer. The court limited its review to the administrative record and found that Dorris could not perform the duties of her regular occupation, but nonetheless ruled in Unum's favor, because Dorris's arguments based on the "20% less" option were conclusory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to benefits. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dorris the opportunity to supplement the record after judgment nor were its factual findings in error. View "Dorris v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America" on Justia Law

The defendants each pleaded guilty to federal drug crimes and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment and supervised release. Before their hearings, both received PSRs that proposed a supervised release condition providing that they “not patronize any taverns, bars, liquor stores, nightclubs or other establishments where the primary item of sale is alcohol.” Both objected in writing to certain supervised release conditions, one contending that an alcohol condition was unnecessary; neither raised a concern that the alcohol condition was unconstitutionally vague. At their sentencings, both defendants confirmed that they had read their PSRs, reviewed the reports with their counsel, and waived an oral reading of the proposed conditions. Neither challenged the alcohol condition as vague. The Seventh Circuit upheld the condition, finding the argument waived. A defendant waives an objection to a condition of supervised release when he has notice of the proposed conditions, a meaningful opportunity to object, and asserts (through counsel or directly) that he does not object to the proposed conditions, waives reading of those conditions and their justifications, challenges certain conditions but not those challenged on appeal, or otherwise evidences an intentional or strategic decision not to object. This is not the “rare and limited instance” when a court may overlook a waiver because the challenged condition concerns activity protected by the First Amendment. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

After a 2005 home invasion, Cook and Egerson were charged with armed robbery, armed burglary, false imprisonment, battery, theft, and mistreatment of an animal causing death. Cook claimed that Hall, not Cook, was Egerson’s accomplice. He was sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment.The Seventh Circuit granted Cook habeas relief. Applying the “Strickland” standard, Cook demonstrated that Wisconsin’s court of appeals unreasonably assessed his contention that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel. In a trial that the presiding judge later characterized as unworthy of confidence, Cook’s attorney failed to locate or produce Hall, a long‐time friend of Egerson, friends with two women accomplices, and ex‐boyfriend of the victims’ daughter. Hall resembles Cook in appearance. The court also noted counsel’s failure to object to hearsay testimony, unsupported by a proper foundation, about cell phone records; failure to bring out the de facto immunity given the women accomplices in exchange for their testimony; failure to object to a victim’s unanticipated in‐court identification of Cook; withdrawal of question to an accomplice about Hall’s possession of a gun immediately before the crimes; and failure to object to testimony that Cook temporarily discontinued his police interrogation. To establish prejudice, Cook did not need to prove “that counsel’s deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome in the case” but only had to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. View "Cook v. Foster" on Justia Law

Before 2008, Cook County ordinances required the Assessor to assess single-family residential property at 16%, commercial property at 38%, and industrial property at 36% of the market value. In 2000-2008, the Assessor actually assessed most property at rates significantly lower than the ordinance rates. In 2008, the Assessor proposed to “recalibrate” the system. The plaintiffs claim that their assessment rates may have been lawful but were significantly higher than the actual rates for most other property owners and that they paid millions of dollars more in taxes in 2000-2008 than they would have if they were assessed at the de facto rates. The taxpayers exhausted their remedies with the Board of Review, then filed suit in state court, citing the Equal Protection Clause, Illinois statutory law and the Illinois Constitution. Years later, their state suit remains in discovery.Claiming that Illinois law limits whom they can name as a defendant, what evidence they can present, and what arguments they can raise, the taxpayers filed suit in federal district court, which held that the Tax Injunction Act barred the suit. The Act provides that district courts may not “enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State,” 28 U.S.C. 1341. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting the County’s concession that Illinois’s tax-objection procedures do not allow the taxpayers to raise their constitutional claims in state court. This is the “rare case in which taxpayers lack an adequate state-court remedy.” View "A.F. Moore & Associates, Inc. v. Pappas" on Justia Law

Elston and his friends were playing basketball at a DuPage County park, heckling one another with salty language. Demeter, an off-duty Kane County sheriff’s deputy, watching his child’s soccer game, demanded that they stop using expletives. Demeter flashed his badge and gun. The boys refused to clean up their language. Demeter grabbed Elston by the neck, threw him to the ground, and climbed on top of him. Bystanders separated the two. Demeter called 911, identifying himself as a police officer in need of assistance. Demeter told Elston’s father that he was a police officer attempting to take Elston into custody for disorderly conduct. Elston was never charged with any offense. Demeter pleaded guilty to violating Aurora’s ordinance against battery.Elston sued Demeter under 42 U.S.C. 1983, winning a default judgment and an award of $110,000. Elston also sued Kane County under Illinois’s Tort Immunity Act. The district court rejected the suit on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Demeter was acting as a private citizen, not within the scope of his duties as a deputy when he injured Elston. Demeter was not acting substantially within the time and space limits authorized by his employment; that Demeter used his badge, gun, and training in an unauthorized manner in q purely personal pursuit does not bring his conduct within the scope of his employment. View "Elston v. County of Kane" on Justia Law

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) prohibits consumer reporting agencies from releasing credit information except under circumstances enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 1681b, including to provide prospective lenders with "prescreen lists" of consumers who meet their criteria if the sharing results in a “firm offer of credit or insurance” to every consumer on that list." Experian compiles consumer information. Western had contracted to receive prescreen lists from Experian through agents. Experian provided its consumer data to Tranzact, which used that information to create prescreen lists, which it sold to a marketing agency, which then extended offers backed by Western to the consumers on the list. Experian terminated its contract with Western, with November 18, 2011, as the cutoff date. A prescreen list with Experian’s data went to Western on November 30, 2011. Neither company knew there was any problem. The list, which included Crabtree, was shared when it should not have been.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Crabtree’s FCRA suit, noting that there was no evidence that anyone on the list did not receive a firm offer from Western. Crabtree, who claimed invasion of privacy and emotional distress, did not allege the requisite injury-in-fact to satisfy Article III’s case or controversy requirement. Experian’s alleged statutory violation, without further allegations of harm, was insufficient to establish a concrete injury. View "Crabtree v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law