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

David Walton, a Wisconsin prisoner, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ashley Nehls, a prison nurse, alleging that she violated his Eighth Amendment rights by engaging in a sexual relationship with him. Walton testified that the relationship was consensual. The district court granted summary judgment for Nehls, reasoning that a consensual sexual relationship does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reviewed the case and entered summary judgment in favor of Nehls. The court concluded that Walton's testimony about the consensual nature of the relationship meant that it could not be considered a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Walton appealed the decision, urging the appellate court to adopt a legal presumption that any sexual activity between a prisoner and a prison official is nonconsensual and violates the Constitution unless the prison official can show an absence of coercion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the power dynamics between prisoners and prison officials and the evolving standards of decency, noting that all 50 states have criminalized sexual conduct between prison officials and prisoners. However, the court found that even if it applied the presumption of nonconsent, the evidence in the record established that the relationship between Walton and Nehls lacked any coercive factors. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's entry of summary judgment for Nehls, leaving the broader legal question of adopting a presumption of nonconsent for another day. View "Walton v Nehls" on Justia Law

George and Maria Dernis borrowed money from Premier Bank, which was involved in fraudulent lending practices. The loans were secured by mortgages on their personal real estate. After Premier Bank collapsed, the FDIC was appointed as receiver and sold some of the bank's loans, including the Dernises' loans, to Amos Financial in 2014. The Dernises claimed that the FDIC was aware of the fraudulent nature of the loans and failed to take remedial action. They filed a lawsuit against the FDIC, which was dismissed by the district court. They then filed an amended complaint against the United States under the FTCA, alleging various torts based on the FDIC's conduct.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the amended complaint, determining that most of the claims were not timely exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The court also found that the sole timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered final judgment.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 Dernises failed to timely exhaust their administrative remedies for most of their claims. The court also held that the only timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception, as it involved misrepresentation, deceit, and interference with contract rights. The court rejected the Dernises' argument that the FDIC’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause provided a broader waiver of sovereign immunity, noting that the United States was the sole defendant and the FTCA provided the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the United States. View "Dernis v United States" on Justia Law

In July 2019, Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS) workers encountered a two-month-old infant, L.M., with a severe skull fracture and extensive brain damage. The infant's parents, Erika and Brian Mabes, had taken him to the emergency room after finding him unresponsive. This led to child abuse and custody proceedings against the Mabeses. They eventually regained custody and sued nine DCS workers and a consultant doctor, alleging violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding unresolved factual disputes that precluded their requests for qualified immunity. The defendants appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's decision, granting qualified immunity to all defendants. The court found that the DCS workers and the consultant doctor acted reasonably under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The court emphasized the urgency and severity of the situation faced by the DCS workers and the consultant doctor, concluding that their actions were lawful and reasonable. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the defendants acted with intent to misrepresent facts or ignored exculpatory evidence. The court remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Mabes v McFeeley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Republic Technologies (NA), LLC and Republic Tobacco, L.P. manufacture and market OCB brand organic hemp rolling papers, while defendant BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP (HBI) markets RAW brand rolling papers. Republic sued HBI in 2016 for a declaration that OCB’s trade dress did not infringe RAW’s trade dress and later added false advertising claims. HBI counterclaimed, alleging that OCB’s trade dress infringed RAW’s trade dress. A jury trial in 2021 resulted in a mixed verdict, and the district court issued a permanent injunction against some of HBI’s advertising practices.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found HBI liable under Illinois law for false advertising but not under the federal Lanham Act. The jury also found that OCB’s trade dress for its 99-cent promotional pack infringed RAW’s trade dress, but not the full-priced pack. Republic’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in responding to the jury’s question about the definition of “consumer” and in denying Republic’s motion for a new trial. The court also upheld the jury’s finding of trade dress infringement, noting that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Additionally, the court affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction, rejecting HBI’s arguments that the injunction was vague, overbroad, and improperly applied nationwide. The court concluded that the injunction was appropriately tailored to provide complete relief to Republic. View "Republic Technologies (NA), LLC v BBK Tobacco & Foods, LLP" on Justia Law

Carlos Estrada, an Indiana resident, was arrested on February 2, 2023, after arranging the sale of 2,579 grams of heroin to an undercover officer in New Jersey. A search of his Indianapolis residence revealed an additional 371 grams of heroin, a digital scale, and a box containing six pounds of lactose, a cutting agent. Estrada committed this offense six months after being released from prison and starting supervised release for a 2019 heroin-distribution conspiracy conviction in the Southern District of New York.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana accepted Estrada's guilty plea to one count of possessing with intent to distribute at least 100 grams of heroin. The court sentenced him to 87 months in prison, at the low end of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Estrada appealed, arguing that the district court erred procedurally by not varying downward his criminal history category, which included points from a 2018 misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Estrada contended that the district court did not adequately explain its decision and misapprehended its authority to depart downward. The appellate court found that the district court's explanation was sufficient, considering Estrada's extensive criminal history, including serious juvenile offenses and the fact that he committed the current offense while on supervised release. The court also determined that the district court did not err in its understanding of its authority to vary downward. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence of 87 months in prison. View "United States v Estrada" on Justia Law

Dr. William Partin filed a lawsuit against Baptist Healthcare System, Inc. and Dr. Daniel Eichenberger after he resigned from his position. Partin alleged that Baptist and Eichenberger retaliated against him in violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and brought claims under Indiana law for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The dispute arose from Partin's treatment of a suicidal patient, J.C., in Baptist's emergency department, where Partin ordered procedures against J.C.'s will, leading to complaints from hospital staff.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment in favor of Baptist and Eichenberger. The court found that no reasonable jury could conclude that Partin engaged in EMTALA-protected activity or that he was retaliated against for such activity. The court also determined that Partin's breach of contract claim failed because the bylaws did not create a contractual relationship between Partin and Baptist, and his resignation was not under duress. Additionally, the court found no evidence to support Partin's claims of tortious interference with contract or defamation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Partin did not engage in EMTALA-protected activity and that his belief in reporting a potential EMTALA violation was not objectively reasonable. The court also agreed that the bylaws did not create a contract between Partin and Baptist and that Partin's resignation was voluntary. Furthermore, the court found that Baptist's actions were justified and not malicious, and that the statements made by Eichenberger and Marksbury were protected by qualified privilege and not made in bad faith. View "Partin v Baptist Healthcare System, Inc." on Justia Law

Leon Carter was charged by the State of Wisconsin with sexual assault, strangulation, and kidnapping. During his trial, the jury sent a note to the judge with a question, but the bailiff answered it without consulting the judge. The jury found Carter guilty on all counts. After learning of the bailiff’s response, Carter moved for a mistrial, which was denied.On direct appeal, Carter’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief, summarizing the record and explaining why potential legal arguments, including those related to the bailiff’s actions, lacked merit. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed the convictions, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied certiorari.Carter then sought federal habeas relief, asserting two violations: that the state appellate court denied him a meaningful appeal under Anders v. California, and that the state trial judge erred by not holding a hearing to investigate jury intrusion, contrary to Remmer v. United States. The district court rejected the Anders claim and did not consider the Remmer claim. Carter appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.The Seventh Circuit concluded that Carter’s Anders claim failed, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals had adequately reviewed the record and briefs, ensuring his appeal was resolved on its merits. The court also found that Carter’s Remmer claim could not overcome the high hurdle set by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), as the bailiff’s communication with the jury did not rise to the level of presumptive prejudice established in Remmer. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Carter v. Tegels" on Justia Law

Event Media Inc. and Pack Expo Services, LLC, were contributing employers to the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund. Both companies withdrew from the Fund and incurred withdrawal liability obligations. The dispute centers on how to calculate these obligations, specifically whether post-2014 contribution rate increases should be included in the calculation.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held that the employers' post-2014 contribution rate increases should be excluded from the calculation of their withdrawal liability payments. The court reasoned that these increases were required by a rehabilitation plan and thus should be disregarded under 29 U.S.C. § 1085(g)(3).The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the post-2014 contribution rate increases were indeed required by the rehabilitation plan and should be excluded from the calculation of the employers' withdrawal liability payments. The court concluded that neither of the exceptions outlined in 29 U.S.C. § 1085(g)(3)(B) applied in this case, as the increases were not due to increased levels of work, employment, or periods for which compensation is provided, nor were they used to provide an increase in benefits permitted by subsection (f)(1)(B). Therefore, the Fund must use the 2014 contribution rate, not the higher 2019 rate, in calculating the employers' withdrawal liability payments. View "Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Event Media Inc." on Justia Law

In the early hours of July 19, 2018, Peoria Police Officer Ryan Isonhart fatally shot Luis Cruz, who was fleeing from officers and allegedly pointing a gun at Officer Nicholas Mason. Lyrah Hernandez, Cruz’s sister, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Cruz’s estate, alleging federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims against Officers Isonhart and Mason, and the City of Peoria. The district court granted summary judgment for Officer Mason, and the case proceeded to trial against the remaining defendants. The jury found in favor of the defendants. Hernandez appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting certain evidence and excluding testimony from two individuals.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois admitted evidence including the crimes underlying the 49 messages, the Department of Child and Family Services investigation, Cruz’s incarceration at the time of his daughters’ birth, and his pending drug charge. The court found these pieces of evidence relevant to the officers’ state of mind and Cruz’s damages. The court also barred testimony from forensic scientist Jennifer MacRitchie, ruling it was expert in nature and not properly disclosed, and excluded a recorded statement from Shaquille Alexander, finding it lacked trustworthiness.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions, finding that the admitted evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and that the exclusion of MacRitchie’s testimony and Alexander’s statement was appropriate. The court concluded that any potential error in admitting Cruz’s pending drug charge was harmless given the overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdict. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Hernandez v City of Peoria, Illinois" on Justia Law

Dennis Jones, a 42-year-old part-time grocery store cashier, applied for Social Security disability benefits, claiming that conditions related to his premature birth, including a cerebral hematoma, had worsened and prevented him from working full-time. The Social Security Administration denied his application, and Jones requested an administrative hearing. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Jones had the residual functional capacity to perform light work with certain limitations and concluded that he was not disabled.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois affirmed the ALJ's decision. Jones then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate a statement from Dr. James Runke, a consultative examiner, which Jones contended was a medical opinion.The Seventh Circuit agreed with Jones that Dr. Runke's statement, which indicated that Jones's pain and joint strain limited him to working 20 hours per week, constituted a medical opinion under the 2017 revised regulations. However, the court held that the ALJ was not required to evaluate the persuasiveness of this medical opinion because it addressed an issue reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security—whether Jones was capable of performing regular or continuing work. Consequently, the ALJ had no obligation to provide an analysis of Dr. Runke's statement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, upholding the denial of benefits. View "Jones v Dudek" on Justia Law