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

T.L., a 15-year old, told S.B. that she had problems at home and was into drugs. S.B. took T.L. to Cosby’s Hammond, Indiana apartment. T.L. told Cosby that she was a 15-year old runaway. Cosby gave T.L. drugs and alcohol and told her that she had to repay him by prostituting herself. Cosby took pictures of T.L. and posted them on the website Backpage to find individuals who would pay for sex. Cosby did not show T.L’s face because she had been reported as missing. T.L. thereafter had sex with five individuals in Cosby’s apartment. Cosby drove T.L. to a Lansing, Illinois motel, where T.L. had sex with many individuals. Hammond police eventually found T.L. and arrested Cosby, who was charged with knowingly transporting a minor in interstate commerce with the intent that she engage in prostitution, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a). The court denied Cosby's request for a sixth continuance after the case had been pending for almost two and a half years and rejected Cosby’s to suppress evidence seized from his cell phone pursuant to a state warrant. He argued that the police exceeded the warrant’s scope by extracting, downloading, and reviewing the phone’s contents. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction, upholding the denial of his continuance and suppression motions and of a motion for a mistrial based on allegedly false testimony. The court rejected an argument concerning failure to take appropriate precautions for a government witness’s dual-capacity testimony. View "United States v. Cosby" on Justia Law

Levitin, a Jewish surgeon of Russian descent, owns and operates a private medical practice. From 2000-2013, most of her revenue came from her work at Northwest Community Hospital, where she maintained practice privileges. In 2008 Levitin complained to Northwest that Dr. Conway, another surgeon, was harassing her, repeatedly criticizing her medical decisions, undermining her in front of her patients, and interrupting her in surgery. Northwest reprimanded Conway. Direct harassment stopped. Several doctors subsequently filed complaints concerning Levitin’s professional judgment. One refused to work with her. The chair of Northwest’s surgery department informed Levitin that he would begin proactively reviewing the surgeries she scheduled for potential issues and reviewed Levitin’s prior surgeries. He referred 31 cases to the Medical Executive Committee, which found that Levitin deviated from the appropriate standard of care in four cases and initially concluded that Levitin should receive quarterly reviews. The Committee reconvened following an incident in which Levitin operated on a patient without proper sedation and voted to terminate her practice privileges. Northwest’s Board of Directors terminated Levitin’s practice privileges. She filed suit, alleging antitrust claims, state-law claims, and a claim for employment discrimination based on sex, religion, and ethnicity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the rejection of her claims, finding that Levitin was not an employee. View "Levitin v. Northwest Community Hospital" on Justia Law

Jozefyk applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, claiming disability based on several conditions, including degenerative changes in his cervical spine, lumbar strain, obesity, affective disorder, and anxiety disorder. An ALJ denied benefits. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Jozefyk’s arguments that the ALJ did not establish a valid waiver of attorney representation before allowing Jozefyk to proceed pro se and that the residual functional capacity finding did not account for Jozefyk’s moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace. Jozefyk was sent several Social Security Administration communications, including a publication entitled “Your Right to Representation,” explaining his right to an attorney, organizations that could help him find an attorney, the fee structure, and the benefits of representation. In his request for a hearing, Jozefyk certified: “I do not have a representative. I understand that I have a right to be represented and that if I need representation, the Social Security office or hearing office can give me a list of legal referral and service organizations to assist me in locating a representative.” The ALJ offered to continue the hearing to give Jozefyk more time to find an attorney, but Jozefyk again stated that he wanted to proceed. Jozefyk cited self-reported symptoms that doctors, including his own treating physician, could not confirm. View "Jozefyk v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

When Pennewell’s incarceration began, he was blind in his left eye. Pennewell complained of pain and vision abnormalities in his right eye. An optometrist referred him to the University of Wisconsin Eye Clinic. After a transfer to another prison. Pennewell submitted health services requests, indicating that his right eye was deteriorating; he was transported to UW where he was diagnosed with a retinal detachment that required emergency surgery. After surgery Pennewell continued to experience vision problems and was diagnosed with a macular tear that required surgery. His surgery resulted in Pennewell being blind for several weeks. Pennewell was not assisted by prison staff in using the restroom or showering and had to get his own meals. Pennewell continued to experience serious problems with his right eye and filed several complaints. He was transferred again. His follow-up appointment with the UW was canceled and he was unable to see a doctor for several weeks. The doctor removed loose stitches that had been causing his pain. Pennewell never recovered his right eye vision and is legally blind. The district court held that based on his adequate pleadings he was competent to litigate his 42 U.S.C. 1983 Eighth Amendment case alone during the advanced pre-trial stages of the litigation. The Seventh Circuit reversed; the court failed to give Pennewell’s motion particularized consideration, The court remanded with instructions to recruit counsel. View "Pennewell v. Parish" on Justia Law

Webber, who was not a professional logger, was cutting down a tree on property owned by his friend, Butner, when a branch fell and hit Webber on the head, causing severe injuries. Webber sued for negligence, alleging that Butner, as the property's owner, had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect Webber’s safety and that Butner assumed a specific duty to Webber when he agreed to look out for hazards and failed to warn Butner of the falling branch. At trial, the court admitted evidence that Webber was not wearing a hardhat while cutting the tree and instructed the jury that the evidence could not support a defense of failure to mitigate damages but could show assumption of risk and comparative fault and whether Webber acted as a reasonably careful person. The jury apportioned 51% of the fault to Webber and 49% to Butner. Under Indiana’s modified comparative fault statute, Webber recovered nothing.The Seventh Circuit ordered a new trial. In determining fault, Indiana law bars admission of evidence that an injured plaintiff was not using safety equipment unless the failure to use the equipment contributed to causing the injury. The fact that Webber was not wearing a hardhat did not cause the branch to fall and hit him on the head. The admission of this evidence and the jury instruction were errors that were not harmless because the jury decided on a “razor‐thin split.” View "Webber v. Butner" on Justia Law

In 2013 Chlad and her husband, Vehovc, filed a joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition seeking to discharge about $5 million of debt. After Chlad and Vehovc filed financial disclosures, two creditors brought an adversary proceeding objecting to the discharge, alleging that the filings omitted information material to the debtors’ financial condition, 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4). Chlad and Vehovc failed to disclose the existence of particular real estate, a significant creditor, bank accounts, a shareholder loan, certain sources of income, and an alternate first name used by Chlad. The bankruptcy court denied the discharge, finding that the omissions reflected material false statements made with fraudulent intent. The district court and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The omissions and misstatements were material and reflected false statements made under oath that the debtors knew or should have known to be false; taken together, the omissions and misstatements demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth, which was sufficient to support a finding of fraudulent intent necessary to deny discharge under section 727(a)(4). View "Chlad v. Chapman" on Justia Law

In 1995, Sotelo was convicted of three counts each of mailing communications with the intent to extort money and mailing threatening communications, based on threatening letters he sent while imprisoned for rape and robbery. The court sentenced Sotelo using the 1994 Sentencing Guidelines. Before the career offender adjustment, Sotelo's sentencing range was 77–96 months’ imprisonment. With that adjustment, the range was 210–262 months. An individual qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 if he had two prior qualifying convictions and the offense of conviction was a felony and a crime of violence. Under the 1994 Guidelines, “crime of violence” meant any conviction that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another” (elements clause), or “burglary of a dwelling, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, (enumerated offenses) or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” (residual clause). Sotelo was sentenced to the top of the career-offender range. On appeal, Sotelo did not challenge his career-offender sentence. He filed his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion in 2016, within a year of the Supreme Court’s “Johnson” decision, invalidating the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act, retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Soleto’s motion does not fit within the 28 U.S.C. 2255(f)(3) exception for motions filed within one year of the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court if that right was made retroactively applicable on collateral review. Johnson, which applies only to the residual clause, does not address Sotelo’s conviction under the elements clause. Sotelo's claim hinges on cases post-dating Sotelo’s conviction, none of which has been declared retroactively applicable on collateral review. View "Sotelo v. United States" on Justia Law

Durham faced revocation of his supervised release. A magistrate found that Durham was “financially unable to retain counsel,” under 18 U.S.C. 3006A(b). Initially, Durham was represented by a court-appointed lawyer. Before the revocation hearing, that lawyer withdrew with court permission. At the hearing, Durham was represented by retained counsel, who was then allowed to withdraw. Durham sought pro se to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. His IFP status lapsed when appointed counsel withdrew. The court denied Durham’s motion, citing his incomplete financial affidavit. The Seventh Circuit appointed the Federal Defender’s Office for the limited purpose of re-filing a proper motion. The district court again denied IFP status, citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1); because Durham had $750 in his prison account he could not show that he was “unable to pay the costs of commencing his appeal.” ($505 filing fee.), and ruling that Durham’s appeal was frivolous.The Seventh Circuit reversed, granting leave to appeal IFP. Durham is not trying to bring a civil appeal, which would be governed by the general IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915, but sought to proceed under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, which asks only if the defendant is “financially unable” to obtain adequate representation. In determining the need for appointed counsel under the Act, the Seventh Circuit is not governed by a requirement of indigence but by financial inability to employ counsel. The Criminal Justice Act does not permit courts to appoint counsel only for defendants whose appeals the court deems not to be frivolous; Anders procedures are available, should counsel come to that conclusion. View "United States v. Durham" on Justia Law

The Board of Forensic Document Examiners (BFDE), a nonprofit organization, administers a certification program for forensic document examiners. The Board has certified about a dozen examiners. Vastrick, a forensic document examiner certified by another, much larger organization, the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners, published an article, Forensic Handwriting Comparison Examination in the Courtroom, in The Judges’ Journal, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by the ABA. Vastrick urged judges to look for experts certified by the American Board and warned judges to “be wary of other certifying bodies.” The article did not mention BFDE by name. BFDE submitted a rebuttal, but frustrated with the ABA’s suggested edits, BFDE filed suit, claiming defamation per se and invasion of privacy on behalf of its members. BFDE also asserted civil conspiracy, false advertising under the Lanham Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, ruling that the article contained only constitutionally-protected, non-actionable opinion. The Journal warned readers that “[a]rticles represent the opinions of the authors alone” and “provide opposing views” for readers to consider. Vastrick highlighted the subjective nature of his article, presenting his views as suggestions, not facts. Vastrick’s assertion that the American Board “is the only certification board recognized by the broader forensic science community, law enforcement, and courts,” reflects the expression of a viewpoint and is so broad as to lack objective, verifiable meaning. View "Board of Forensic Document Examiners, Inc. v. American Bar Association" on Justia Law

Goudy, convicted of a 1993 murder, obtained habeas corpus relief, 28 U.S.C. 2254. The state did not retry him. Goudy filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arguing that state and local officials failed to comply with their “Brady” obligations to turn over material, exculpatory evidence and that he is entitled to damages for the years he spent in prison. The district court focused on allegations that the investigators violated his due process rights by subjecting him to an improper show‐up procedure, withholding a videotape showing a line‐up in which several witnesses identified a different person as the shooter, and withholding interview notes showing that the other suspect initially denied any involvement in the murder, but later switched his story. The court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. Goudy presented enough evidence on the second and third arguments to move forward. A reasonable trier of fact could find that Cummings (initially an investigator, later a prosecutor) suppressed the lineup videotape and both investigators suppressed the interview notes. Even if the videotape were the only suppressed evidence, the jury could find it material, given the lack of definitive physical evidence, the state’s reliance on eyewitness testimony, inconsistencies among the testifying witnesses, and the utility of the video as both evidence of an exculpatory theory and impeachment. View "Goudy v. Cummings" on Justia Law