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

Federal prisoner Sargeant filed a grievance against a prison official, Cruze, after she commented on his sexual preferences and refused to give him books that he had ordered. When Sargeant's case manager, Barfield, showed Sargeant the prison’s response, Sargeant noticed that it was signed by Cruze and pointed out that, under the prison’s rules, Cruze should not have seen a grievance lodged against her. Barfield then told others about the grievance. Sargeant filed a separate grievance against Barfield. In retaliation, Barfield “repeatedly” put Sargeant, who had cooperated with the government, in cells with prisoners known to be violent. This led to fights until Sargeant was transferred to another prison.Sargeant sued seeking monetary damages, alleging that Barfield retaliated against him for filing grievances. He did not identify which of his constitutional rights she had allegedly violated. In screening under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the judge decided that Sargeant could proceed only on a First Amendment retaliation claim and did not discuss any possible Eighth Amendment claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Under the Bivens doctrine, a federal prisoner cannot recover damages for a violation of First Amendment rights. Recognizing a failure-to-protect claim in this context would risk intrusion with the federal prison system; the claim presents separation-of-powers concerns and special factors not accounted for by any of the Supreme Court’s Bivens precedents. View "Sargeant v. Barfield" on Justia Law

Fliss, Wojciak, and Barr took out a $200,000 bank loan for their jointly owned companies. Each man personally guaranteed the loan. When the borrowers defaulted, the bank obtained a state court $208,639.95 consent judgment, holding the guarantors jointly and severally liable. Wojciak then entered into an agreement with the bank, through his company, Capital I, to purchase the promissory note and judgment debt for $240,000, then entered into a settlement agreement with the bank, agreeing to pay $240,000. Wojciak's other company, Capital II wired the bank $240,000. The state court substituted Capital I for the bank as the plaintiff. Wojciak moved to enforce the judgment: Capital I commenced a supplemental proceeding and sought property turnovers. Fliss and Barr unsuccessfully argued that the debt was extinguished when the Wojciaks paid $240,000 in exchange for settlement.Fliss filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Wojciak had Capital I file a secured claim, seeking to enforce the judgment–$359,967.69 including post-judgment interest. The bankruptcy court disallowed that claim, finding that Wojciak used Capital I as his alter ego and became both the creditor and debtor, which extinguished the debt. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claim objection—the Rooker-Feldman doctrine posed no obstacle. Capital I failed to demonstrate the existence of a final judgment as required by res judicata and collateral estoppel. View "Generation Capital I, LLC v. Fliss" on Justia Law

The Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA) operates schools for military families. Smithson has worked as a DODEA science teacher since 2004. Smithson’s medical conditions include migraines, intracranial hypertension, affective disorder, vertigo, and ADHD. These conditions, with the required medications, have caused her problems with balance, walking, driving, breathing, vision, speech, and memory. In 2010, Smithson first obtained accommodations–an occasional flexible start time and permission to be seated during part of the teaching day. In 2014-2016, Smithson's requests for additional accommodations were largely granted. Principal Villareal's response to Smithson’s request for a flexible duty reporting time of up to two hours was, “The employee is approved to use sick leave for any absence from school up to two hours, barring any undue hardship to the school schedule.” Later, Smithson indicated that she would be late every day but would arrive before her first instructional section. Smithson then used sick leave as needed. During the pandemic, Smithson began to work from home, full-time, in DODEA’s Virtual School.Smithson sued under the Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate when she was required to use a half-day of sick leave whenever she arrived late. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of DODEA. In-person attendance was an essential function of Smithson’s position and her need to miss up to two hours each morning demonstrated that she could not perform this essential function. A frequent two-hour delay at the beginning of the school day is not the same as an infrequent 15-minute delay, as permitted under her original accommodation. View "Smithson v. Austin" on Justia Law

Escorted by an officer who had followed him from the scene of a shooting, Hudson entered the Medical Center seeking emergency treatment for a gunshot wound. The officer stood outside Hudson’s hospital room. Medical staff discovered Hudson was concealing “something plastic” in his mouth and spent nearly 20 minutes admonishing Hudson to spit it out before he finally complied, revealing a device used to convert a firearm into a fully automatic weapon. Hudson moved to suppress the device, arguing that the medical staff acted as government agents in conducting a warrantless search.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. Knowledge and inaction alone are insufficient to establish an agency relationship. There must be some evidence of government participation in or affirmative encouragement of the private search before a court will hold it unconstitutional. Viewed in context, the officer answered questions but did not direct the medical staff to act in any particular way. The facts supported a finding that medical staff acted with the purpose of providing medical treatment, not assisting law enforcement. The court noted that both the officer and the medical staff apparently assumed that Hudson was concealing drugs, voicing concerns that the suspected drugs could cause him to overdose. View "United States v. Hudson" on Justia Law

Fitschen was diagnosed with advanced cancer and stopped working. In 2000 the Social Security Administration (SSA) found Fitschen eligible for disability benefits. Fitschen returned to work in 2001 but continued to receive benefits for a nine-month “trial work period,” 42 U.S.C. 422(c)(4). After that period, he could continue to work and receive benefits for another 36-month period if his wages did not exceed the level at which a person is deemed to be capable of engaging in substantial work activity. The SSA's 2003 review determined that Fitschen had engaged in substantial work and should not have received benefits for much of 2002-2003. The SSA notified him of his overpayment liability but his benefits continued because he had again ceased substantial work. Fitschen again returned to work in 2004 but did not report the change. The SSA initiated another review in 2007 and suspended his benefits. The SSA may waive recovery of overpayments if the recipient was without fault.In 2019 the Commissioner of Social Security found Fitschen liable for an overpayment of $50,289.70 and declined to waive recovery. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the SSA was procedurally barred from recovering the overpayment because it failed to comply with its “reopening” regulation; the overpayment assessment did not “reopen” Fitschen’s initial eligibility determination or any later determination concerning the continuation or recomputation of his benefits. Substantial evidence supports the finding that Fitschen was at fault. View "Fitschen v. Kijakazi" on Justia Law

Two men buzzed a neighboring unit and explained they were trying to contact Apartment 7’s resident. Neighbors admitted them but moments later heard gunshots. Neighbors called 9-1-1. Police saw bullet holes in Apartment 7’s door, shell casings on the stairs, and an empty gun holster. Considering whether someone inside needed assistance, officers called an ambulance, unsuccessfully tried to contact anyone inside, and attempted to open the door manually. They then used a sledgehammer, which fractured the door, splintered the doorjamb, and overcame the deadbolt 10 minutes after the police arrived. Police immediately smelled raw cannabis and saw loose cannabis. Sergeant Barksdale entered a bedroom, saw a large closet, opened the closet door, and found cannabis. In the living room, he opened another large closet, pushed aside clothing, and found a rifle. The search lasted about 90 seconds. Maxwell arrived. Police determined that it was his apartment and obtained a search warrant. During the subsequent search, they found two guns, more than 10 pounds of marijuana, and $75,000 in cash.After the denial of his motion to suppress, Maxwell conditionally pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of firearms as a felon. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. When the police entered Maxwell’s apartment, they had an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone was injured inside, their entrance did not cause excessive or unnecessary damage, and they searched only in places where an injured person could be. View "United States v. Maxwell" on Justia Law

The Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, section 26, protects the right to hunt. Since 1990, Wisconsin has had a special statute making it a crime to harass hunters in various ways; a 2016 amendment makes it a crime to interfere intentionally with a hunter by “maintaining a visual or physical proximity” to the hunter, by “approaching or confronting” the hunter, or by photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or otherwise recording the hunter's activity. The plaintiffs oppose hunting. They have observed hunters on public land, have sometimes approached and confronted them, have photographed and filmed hunters’ activities, and intend to continue all those activities.The plaintiffs assert that the prohibitions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In a pre-enforcement challenge, the district court granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring an as-applied challenge to the law and that their facial constitutional challenges failed on the merits.The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, first holding that the plaintiffs have standing to bring both their as-applied and facial challenges before formal enforcement efforts because the statute has been used to harass and intimidate them and has caused them to refrain from engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment. Certain clauses of the law are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The statute discriminates against speech and expressive activity based on viewpoint and the defendants have not offered justifications for the provision that satisfy strict scrutiny. View "Brown v. Kemp" on Justia Law

Officers used a confidential source (CS) for two controlled methamphetamine buys from Deeren. The CS met Deeren at a gas station and went to 3243 Brouse Avenue in Dereen's car. The CS handed Deeren cash; Deeren entered the house. Minutes later, Deeren returned and handed the CS meth. The two returned to the gas station, where the CS gave the meth to an undercover officer. Deeren used a different car each time. Officers obtained a warrant to search the residence and any vehicles on its premises. Days later, they arranged another controlled buy and observed Miles using a key to enter the residence. When Deeren and the CS arrived, Deeren approached Miles on the front porch. Officers arrested both men and executed the warrant. After waiving his Miranda rights, Miles admitted to living at the house and owning two vehicles on the premises (not those used during the controlled buys). The officers found 107.3 grams of meth inside a vehicle, 160.5 grams of meth in the house, 124 grams of a mixture containing cocaine, two rifles, and drug distribution paraphernalia.Miles, charged with possession with intent to distribute meth and a mixture containing cocaine and knowing possession of two firearms, argued that the warrant did not establish probable cause and was not sufficiently particular. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion to suppress but vacated Miles’s 240-month sentence, remanding for the purpose of vacating one of his firearm sentences and merging his two firearm convictions. View "United States v. Miles" on Justia Law

In 2010, Sweatt pleaded guilty to five counts of armed bank robbery. The district court ordered him to pay $20,038.52 under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A–3664. In the “Payment Schedule,” the court selected “immediately.” Sweatt declined to participate in the Bureau’s Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, through which the Bureau allocates portions of prisoners’ incomes to their restitution debts. In 2023, the district court authorized the Bureau of Prisons to turn over $600 of $1,100 in Sweatt’s prison trust account to be applied toward his restitution debt. Sweatt then had hip replacement surgery, preventing him from working for about 18 months.Sweatt moved to modify his judgment to halt his restitution payments until he resumes working; 18 U.S.C. 3664(k) provides that once a court receives notification of “any material change in the defendant’s economic circumstances that might affect the defendant’s ability to pay restitution,” the court may “adjust the payment schedule.” The Seventh Circuit vacated the denial of his motion. Sweatt did not ask to alter the fact or amount of restitution or to usurp the Bureau’s exclusive authority to impose a pre-release payment plan. The government assumed that Sweatt was trying to alter his obligations under a Program agreement with the Bureau but no such agreement existed. Generally, district courts lack jurisdiction to modify a sentence, but they can do so when authorized by statute; section 3664(k) permits the court to modify the restitution schedule. View "United States v. Sweatt" on Justia Law

Johnson, a Wisconsin company, merged with Tyco, an Irish company. The combined entity, Johnson International, is domiciled in Ireland. The merger's terms were disclosed in a joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC, along with the opinions of financial advisors that the merger was overall “fair.” The statement stated that the market price of the shares would fluctuate. Each share of Johnson’s common stock would be, at the election of the shareholder, either converted into an ordinary share of International or cashed out; either would be a taxable transaction. Johnson shareholders were expected to own approximately 56% of International to prevent triggering 26 U.S.C. 7874: when a domestic corporation is acquired by a foreign entity, but its former shareholders retain at least 60% of the stock, the expatriated entity must pay “inversion gain” taxes. The Treasury Department had announced proposed regulations that affected how Johnson’s equity would be calculated, eliminating the tax benefits of the “reverse merger.” The proxy statement warned that if those regulations were finalized, the tax benefits would not be realized. Johnson shareholders voted in favor of the merger.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wrongfully structured the merger as taxable for Johnson’s former shareholders. “Although plaintiffs allege that they are not challenging the business and financial merits of the merger, their arguments boil down to a demand for a better deal;” they failed to allege any materially misleading statements or omissions. View "Smykla v. Molinaroli" on Justia Law