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

Thompson pled guilty as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C 922(g)(1). He admitted he possessed the firearm and initially conceded he was a felon based on his prior conviction of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW), an Illinois state‐law offense. Later, he moved to set aside his plea on the basis that the AUUW conviction was invalid and he should not have been considered a felon. The Seventh Circuit (2012) and the Illinois Supreme Court (2013) had deemed the AUUW statute unconstitutional before Thompson was charged but Thompson never moved to have the conviction vacated or expunged. The district court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. United States (1980), denied his motion and sentenced him to 16 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Thompson’s argument that a conviction for violating a state statute later ruled unconstitutional and void ab initio cannot serve as a predicate offense for the federal felon in possession statute. The plain meaning of section 922(g)(1) “is that the fact of a felony conviction imposes [a] firearm disability until the conviction is vacated or the felon is relieved of his disability by some affirmative action. … No exception ... is made for a person whose outstanding felony conviction ultimately might turn out to be invalid for any reason.” View "United States v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Unbeknownst to Burton, her license was suspended. Zion Officer Meyers spotted her driving, verified that there was an active warrant for her arrest, and activated his emergency lights. Burton saw his lights but claims she was afraid to pull over because, in 2008, Officer Richardt pulled Burton over, and, while she was handcuffed, used a taser on her. The Department sustained Burton's allegations of unnecessary force. Burton sued, obtaining a settlement. Instead of stopping, Burton drove toward her home, following all traffic laws, wanting friendly witnesses. The officers knew that Burton was heading home. Richardt, the officer involved in the 2008 incident, joined the pursuit. Burton stopped near her friend, with his pit bull. Meyers approached Burton’s driver’s side door. Burton exited through the passenger door because, she alleged, the other door was not functioning. Richardt ran and brought Burton to the ground by incorrectly executing a “straight-arm take-down.” The dog bit Richardt's leg but immediately released without causing damage. Sergeant Arrington placed his knee on Burton’s back as he handcuffed her then dragged her away.Burton sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983,. The court excluded evidence regarding the 2008 incident. The jury found in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The fact that Burton had been previously subjected to excessive force was not propensity evidence and could not be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 404. The court must weigh the probative value against the potential prejudice, considering ways in which prejudice can be mitigated. Excessive force amounts to whether the officers’ force, given the facts and circumstances known to them at the time, was reasonable. View "Burton v. City of Zion" on Justia Law

Beley and Montgomery represent a class of sex offenders who allege that Chicago refused to register them under the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) because they could not produce proof of address. If true, that might have violated SORA, because the Act provides a mechanism for registering the homeless. Beley and Montgomery, however, sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of their right to procedural due process because the city used constitutionally inadequate procedures to determine whether they had satisfied SORA’s registration requirements. The Seventh Circuit rejected the claim. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees due process only when the state deprives someone of life, liberty, or property. Beley and Montgomery insist that the City deprived them of liberty: they assert a right to register under SORA. This is not a cognizable liberty interest, so the plaintiffs have no due process claim. The court noted they do not complain that the city incarcerated them; nor do they seek to enjoin the city from incarcerating them in the future. The state action relevant here—the intake officers’ refusal to register the plaintiffs—did not deprive the plaintiffs of their interest in freedom from bodily restraint, View "Beley v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In 2013, while Koger was serving a 300-day sentence in the Cook County Jail, Lyons sent him at least 10 books, plus magazines and newspapers. More than 30 books were seized from Koger’s cell for violation of Jail policy. In a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, Lyons and Koger claimed that limiting inmates to three pieces of reading material violated the First Amendment. The district court rejected the suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to Lyons, who lacked standing because Koger received everything she sent, but vacated as to Koger. The court noted that Koger challenged the policy, rather than the particular seizure, and that the policy provides for no pre-deprivation process. View "Lyons v. Dart" on Justia Law

Since entering the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections in 2009, Wilson has sought medical treatment for dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, neck and throat pain, and difficulty breathing and swallowing. He alleged that Oshkosh Correctional Institution's doctors were deliberately indifferent in their treatment of these ailments in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court found that no reasonable jury could find that the doctors were deliberately indifferent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Wilson failed to prove that he actually suffers from Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. None of the testing done at Oshkosh or at the Wisconsin Resource Center provided any evidence that Wilson suffered from a cognitive disorder. These disorders are difficult to identify and diagnose, but without such evidence, Wilson cannot show that he suffered a serious medical condition, let alone indifference in the treatment of that condition. The doctor did investigate Wilson’s mental health condition, referring him to a psychiatrist and a specialty center for extensive observation. The record is replete with evidence of the doctor’s attempts to diagnose the source of Wilson’s pain. He worked with endocrinologists, an otolaryngologist, a speech pathologist, a pulmonologist, a neurosurgeon, and a dentist. View "Wilson v. Adams" on Justia Law

In 2010, a doctor prescribed Paxil, the brand‐name version of paroxetine, to treat Stewart’s depression and anxiety. His prescription was filled with generic paroxetine manufactured by another company (not a defendant). Days later, Stewart committed suicide at age 57. He had paroxetine in his system. GSK manufactured brand‐name Paxil and was responsible under federal law for the content of the drug’s label. Labels for paroxetine and similar antidepressant drugs then warned that they were associated with suicide in patients under the age of 24 but did not warn about any association between the drugs and an increased risk of suicide in older adults. It is virtually impossible to sue generic drug manufacturers for failure to warn because they are required to use the FDA-approved label used by the brand-name (original) manufacturer. Only the brand-name manufacturer can seek FDA approval to change the label. Stewart’s wife sued GSK, alleging that it negligently failed to include warnings that paroxetine was associated with suicide in patients older than 24. The jury awarded her $3 million. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that federal law prevented GSK from adding a warning about the alleged association between paroxetine and suicides in adults. The FDA repeatedly told GSK not to add a paroxetine‐specific suicide risk warning. View "Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC" on Justia Law

In 2002, officers seized $100,120 in U.S. currency from an Amtrak train passenger. The federal government initiated a civil forfeiture proceeding against the currency. The passenger and the owner of the funds, neither of whom were charged with committing any crime related to the funds, joined the suit as claimants. After 14 years and two appeals, a jury found the currency was substantially connected to a drug transaction and entered a verdict for the government. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the denial of the claimants’ motion to have dog-sniff evidence excluded on spoliation grounds based on claimants' argument that the government intentionally converted the currency to a cashier’s check, depriving them of the opportunity to perform chemical tests to determine the presence or absence of drugs. The judge accepted the government’s contention that the officers deposited the currency in conformity with a Justice Department policy not to hold large amounts of cash and found no bad faith. The jury instructions were not confusing; they told the jury to determine whether the money was substantially connected to some unlawful drug transaction and fit within certain statutory categories, regardless of the claimants’ personal participation in any such drug transaction. The verdict was supported by evidence concerning the drug-courier profile, the drug dog’s alert, and the claimants' implausible explanations for being on the train and having the cash. View "Marrocco v. Funds in the Amount of One Hundred Thousand and One Hundred Twenty Dollars" on Justia Law

In 2009, Scott pleaded guilty to engaging in two schemes to defraud investors and potential investors, 18 U.S.C. 1341. One of the supervised release conditions the district court imposed at sentencing was that he could not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without the approval of the probation officer. After his release, Scott violated his supervised release conditions several times. At the revocation hearing for one of these violations, the district court found Scott violated one of his probation conditions and sentenced him to an additional 36 months of supervised release. The district court declined to impose further custody due to Scott’s regular restitution payments. Defense counsel stated, “we have no objection to extending the period of mandatory supervised release.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Scott’s argument that the district court committed procedural errors at the revocation hearing in failing to calculate or discuss the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and in failing to afford him an opportunity to allocute, finding that Scott waived both issues. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Tounisi decided to join Jabhat al-Nusrah in Syria after learning about its violent operations and its links to al-Qaida. His parents attempted to stop him by taking away his passport. Tounisi applied for an expedited passport, reporting that his passport was lost and he intended to travel to Jordan. He visited a purported Jabhat al-Nusrah recruitment website and emailed the listed contact person, actually an FBI agent, about his travel strategy, stating that he would seize the opportunity to attain martyrdom. Tounisi, then 18 years old, bought a ticket for a flight to Istanbul. The “recruiter” sent him a bus ticket to Gaziantep and promised that “brothers” would be waiting to take him to a training camp in Syria. Tounisi responded by describing what he would be wearing. At O’Hare Airport, federal agents questioned and arrested him for knowingly attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), and making false statements in connection with an offense involving international terrorism, section 1001(a)(2). He pleaded guilty to the first charge in exchange for dismissal of the second and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 15 years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the judge did not sufficiently address Tounisi’s mitigating arguments or adequately explain the length of imprisonment or supervised relief and failed to properly consider the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. View "United States v. Tounisi" on Justia Law

Holcomb did not pay her credit-card bill. The creditor hired the Freedman law firm, which sued Holcomb on the creditor’s behalf in state court. Holcomb initially appeared pro se but later retained Attorney Finko. When Freedman moved for default judgment, Finko had not yet filed a written appearance. Freedman served the motion on both Holcomb and Finko. Holcomb alleges that Freedman violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits a debt collector from directly contacting a debtor who is represented by counsel absent “express permission” from “a court of competent jurisdiction,” 15 U.S.C. 1692c(a)(2). Freedman argued that it had “express permission” because Illinois Supreme Court Rule 11 requires service of court papers on a party’s “attorney of record,” if there is one, but “[o]therwise service shall be made upon the party.” Freedman argued that Finko was not yet Holcomb’s “attorney of record” for purposes of Rule 11, requiring service on Holcomb directly. The district judge rejected this argument as “hyper-technical.” The Seventh Circuit reversed. An attorney becomes a party’s “attorney of record” for Rule 11 purposes only by filing a written appearance or another pleading with the court. Finko had done neither, so Rule 11 required Freedman to serve the default motion on Holcomb directly. View "Holcomb v. Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, LLC" on Justia Law