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

Employees of United Airlines, including pilots, flight attendants, and other staff, challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccination mandate and masking requirement issued in 2021. United required employees to either get vaccinated or apply for religious or medical exemptions by specific deadlines. Plaintiffs alleged that despite submitting or attempting to submit exemption requests, they were either fired, placed on unpaid leave, or subjected to a hostile work environment.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, finding that they had not stated any viable claim for relief despite having sufficient opportunities to do so. The court addressed each of the plaintiffs' twelve claims, noting that many were forfeited due to the plaintiffs' failure to respond to substantive arguments. The court also found deficiencies in the proposed amended complaints and ultimately dismissed the action with prejudice after determining that further amendments would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs' claims were either improperly preserved or inadequately pled. The court found that the plaintiffs had forfeited their FDCA, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims by failing to address the district court's findings of forfeiture. The court also upheld the dismissal of the Illinois Whistleblower Act claim, as the plaintiffs did not show how receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would violate federal regulations. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Title VII claims due to the plaintiffs' failure to obtain right-to-sue letters from the EEOC, which is a prerequisite for such lawsuits. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not err in denying further opportunities to amend the complaint. View "Anderson v. United Airlines" on Justia Law

Roger Snake, an elder member of the Ho-Chunk tribe, pleaded guilty in 2011 to two counts of abusive sexual contact with minors. After completing his prison sentence in 2020, he began a lifetime term of supervised release. Snake violated several conditions of his release, including having unapproved and unsupervised contact with minors and traveling outside the judicial district without permission. The district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison, which was above the recommended range in the Sentencing Guidelines.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin initially addressed Snake's violations informally, reminding him of the conditions of his supervised release. However, after further violations, including being found alone with minors in his home, the court issued a summons. Snake admitted to the violations, and his lawyer requested home detention instead of prison, citing his role as a tribal elder. The district court rejected this argument, emphasizing the severity of his violations and the risk he posed to minors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Snake argued that the district court failed to adequately explain the reasons for imposing a sentence above the guideline range. The appellate court, applying a highly deferential standard of review, found that the district court had sufficiently explained its decision. The court noted that the district judge had considered the relevant statutory factors and the egregiousness of Snake's violations. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, emphasizing the need for clear explanations in sentencing and the importance of addressing potential procedural errors promptly. View "United States v. Snake" on Justia Law

Lazerek Austin, a state prisoner, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three medical providers, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin, representing himself, requested the court to recruit counsel due to his severe mental illness and lack of access to legal resources. The district court initially granted his motion for recruited counsel but was unable to find a volunteer attorney despite extensive efforts. Consequently, Austin continued to litigate his case pro se, participating in discovery and responding to motions.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois eventually granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that a reasonable jury could not find that they violated Austin’s constitutional rights. Austin appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not continuing to search for counsel after initially granting his motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court noted that federal courts cannot compel attorneys to provide free services to civil litigants and that the district court made reasonable efforts to recruit counsel. The court emphasized that the district court was not required to search indefinitely for a volunteer attorney and that it reasonably concluded Austin was capable of litigating his case pro se. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in its handling of Austin's motion for recruited counsel and its determination that Austin could proceed without counsel. View "Austin v. Hansen" on Justia Law

In January 2017, Deaunta Tyler, along with Ledell Tyler and Dalvent Jackson, forcibly entered a home in Rock Island, Illinois, armed with firearms, searching for cocaine. They found a family instead and, brandishing weapons, demanded the non-existent drugs. The intruders moved the family around the house at gunpoint, passing firearms among themselves and threatening to kill the victims. Jackson fired a handgun inside the house. The intruders eventually left with cash and a small amount of marijuana. The next day, police identified the men, leading to a high-speed chase and Tyler's eventual arrest.A grand jury indicted Tyler on three counts: attempted Hobbs Act robbery, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Tyler was convicted on all counts. The district court sentenced him to 330 months in prison. Following the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Taylor, which held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), Tyler moved to vacate his § 924(c) conviction. The district court granted the motion, vacated the § 924(c) conviction, and resentenced Tyler to 240 months.Tyler appealed his revised sentence, arguing that the district court failed to address his key arguments in mitigation and provided an inadequate explanation for the sentence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Tyler waived any procedural objection regarding the court’s failure to consider his arguments in mitigation by confirming that the court had addressed his principal points. Additionally, the appellate court found that the district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing a revised sentence within the guideline range. View "United States v Tyler" on Justia Law

Epic Systems Corporation sued Tata Consultancy Services Limited and Tata America International Corporation for unauthorized use of confidential information. A jury awarded Epic $240 million in compensatory damages and $700 million in punitive damages. The district court reduced these amounts to $140 million and $280 million, respectively, and entered judgment in 2017. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the compensatory damages but limited the punitive damages to $140 million, leading to a new judgment in 2022. Tata agreed to pay postjudgment interest on the compensatory damages from 2017 but argued that interest on the punitive damages should start from 2022. The district court sided with Tata, and Epic appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that both the 2017 and 2022 judgments included $140 million in compensatory damages and at least $140 million in punitive damages. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, which held that postjudgment interest should be based on the date when damages became ascertainable. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the $140 million punitive damages were ascertainable from the 2017 judgment, as neither the district court nor the appellate court had ever deemed this amount excessive.The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to award postjudgment interest on the $140 million punitive damages starting from October 3, 2017. View "Epic Systems Corporation v Tata Consultancy Services Limited" on Justia Law

Union Pacific Railroad Company, as the corporate successor to a dissolved coal mining company, periodically received mine subsidence claims from the Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund. The Fund, acting as a reinsurer for primary insurers offering mine subsidence coverage, sought to recover its reinsurance payments from Union Pacific. After years of litigation, Union Pacific sued the Fund for declaratory and injunctive relief to preclude future cases. The Fund moved to dismiss, and the district court allowed the complaint seeking injunctive relief to proceed on certain theories but not others. Union Pacific brought an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois had previously ruled that Union Pacific could seek declaratory and injunctive relief for subsidence claims acquired by the Fund before the Gillespie case and the 2019 Opinion but not for future claims. Union Pacific amended its complaint, and the district court reiterated its earlier decision, dismissing the request for future injunctive relief while allowing the case to proceed on the earlier claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. The court determined that the district court's order was a narrowing of the injunctive relief rather than a definitive refusal. The court also found that the injunctive relief sought on appeal was not substantially different from the relief still pending in the district court. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund" on Justia Law

Thomas Wilkinson was charged with drug and firearm offenses, including possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The indictment noted two prior state drug convictions relevant to sentencing. Wilkinson initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The government filed a notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 to enhance Wilkinson's sentence based on one prior drug-trafficking conviction.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois accepted Wilkinson's guilty plea. However, before sentencing, it was discovered that the prior conviction cited in the § 851 notice did not qualify as a "serious drug felony" under federal law. The government then sought to use a different prior conviction, not mentioned in the § 851 notice, to enhance Wilkinson's sentence. The district court agreed, finding that the government had substantially complied with § 851's requirements, and sentenced Wilkinson to a total of twenty years in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government failed to comply with the notice requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1) by not providing written notice of the specific prior conviction it intended to use for the sentence enhancement before Wilkinson's guilty plea. The court found that this error was not harmless, as it affected Wilkinson's ability to make an informed decision about his plea and the district court's sentencing decision. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit vacated Wilkinson's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "USA v Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Mark Johnson was convicted by an Indiana jury of felony rape, felony criminal confinement, and misdemeanor battery. He appealed, arguing that the exclusion of certain DNA evidence and the destruction of the victim's blood sample before toxicology testing violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated his convictions for criminal confinement and battery on double jeopardy grounds but affirmed the rape conviction. Johnson's petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court was denied. He then sought post-conviction review in state court and, after exhausting state remedies, sought federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Johnson's habeas petition, concluding that his DNA-related claim was procedurally defaulted and that the state court reasonably applied federal law in determining that the State had not acted in bad faith when discarding the blood sample. Johnson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Johnson's claim regarding the exclusion of DNA evidence was procedurally defaulted because he failed to raise it in his petition for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Additionally, the court found that the Indiana Court of Appeals reasonably applied federal law in determining that the police had not acted in bad faith when disposing of the blood sample, as the evidence was only potentially exculpatory and there was no clear indication of bad faith. The court concluded that the state court's decision did not deviate from established federal law or constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts. View "Johnson v Sevier" on Justia Law

Steven Lindsey was convicted of murdering his wife in 2016 after three trials. He was sentenced to fifty-five years in prison. Lindsey appealed his conviction, but the Court of Appeals of Indiana denied his appeal, and the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear his case. In 2019, Lindsey filed a pro se postconviction petition in state court, which has seen little progress over six years due to state court inaction and prosecution delays.The state court appointed a public defender for Lindsey nearly two years after he filed his petition, despite his wish to represent himself. The case experienced multiple delays, including the appointment and withdrawal of special prosecutors and the state court's failure to rule on Lindsey's motions. Lindsey actively tried to move his case forward, filing motions and responding to discovery requests, but the state court and prosecution's actions significantly delayed the proceedings.Lindsey then filed a federal habeas petition in the Northern District of Indiana in 2023, arguing that the inordinate delay in his state postconviction proceedings should excuse the exhaustion requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). The district court dismissed his petition, finding the delays reasonable and attributing them to Lindsey's legal inexperience. Lindsey appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case.The Seventh Circuit found that the six-year delay in Lindsey's state postconviction proceedings was inordinate and attributable to the state. The court held that the delay rendered the state process ineffective in protecting Lindsey's rights, excusing him from the exhaustion requirement. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits of Lindsey's habeas petition. View "Lindsey v Neal" on Justia Law

Antonio Smith, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution in Wisconsin, was on a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions. After refusing to leave his cell for a wellness check, correctional officers used force to extract him for three consecutive days without incident. On the fourth day, Captain Jay Van Lanen used pepper spray, despite knowing Smith had a medical contraindication. Smith experienced severe respiratory distress and was placed naked in a cold cell for 23 hours.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that there were no Eighth Amendment violations. Smith appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that a jury could determine that the use of pepper spray and the conditions of Smith's confinement violated the Eighth Amendment. However, the court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision based on qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.The court held that while the actions of Captain Van Lanen and Lieutenant Retzlaff could be seen as excessive and lacking legitimate penological purpose, the specific rights violated were not clearly established at the time. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no evidence of excessive force during Smith's escort to the health unit, affirming summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. View "Smith v Kind" on Justia Law