Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

MCCAULEY v. CITY OF CHICAGO (October 20, 2011)

Glenford Martinez was released from prison in 2006, after serving 13 years for attempted murder. The following year, he was arrested for domestic battery after he allegedly choked his former girlfriend, Mersaides McCauley. Martinez could have been held without bail had the Illinois Department of Corrections issued a parole violation warrant. They did not -- and he was released on bail. McCauley obtained an order of protection, but to no avail. Martinez continued to violate the order. In early 2008, Martinez shot and killed McCauley and then killed himself. McCauley's estate brought a number of federal and state claims against numerous defendants, including an equal protection claim against the City of Chicago and Roger Walker, the then-IDOC Director. Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the federal claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state claims. With respect to the equal protection claims, she concluded that female victims of domestic violence are not a protected class and that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity precluded any recovery against Walker in his official capacity. The court denied the estate's request to conduct discovery to support a personal capacity claim against Walker. The estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Sykes, and Hamilton (dissenting in part) affirmed. The Court criticized the district court's analysis but ended up with the same result. The Court approached the case by asking whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts that would allow an inference that the City maintained a "policy, custom, or practice" of discrimination against a group to which McCauley belonged. Twombly and Iqbal require specific facts that support the legal claims, rather than legal conclusions and conclusory allegations. After disregarding the complaint's legal conclusions, the Court found that the factual allegations did not satisfy the Monell standard. In fact, the factual allegations alleged that the City failed to provide special protection to female victims of domestic violence, not that it failed to provide equal protection. The equal protection claim against the City was properly dismissed. The Court also affirmed the denial of discovery related to the Walker personal capacity claim, although again for different reasons. Given that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Walker had any personal involvement in Martinez' parole, the district court's refusal to allow discovery on the issue was not an abuse of discretion.

Judge Hamilton dissented from the majority's dismissal of the equal protection claim against the court City. His dissent was primarily an attack on Iqbal, its heightened pleading requirements, its inconsistency with other rules and practice, and its difficulty in application. He believed that the estate's complaint adequately alleged an equal protection claim by alleging that the City treated domestic violence less seriously than other crimes and that it had a custom of doing so. Even if he concluded that the complaint fell short, however, he would have remanded to give the estate an opportunity to amend its pleading to meet the heightened standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MARCAVAGE v. CITY OF CHICAGO (October 4, 2011)

In July of 2006, Chicago played host to the seventh annual Gay Games, which consisted of a number of athletic and cultural events over several days. A number of volunteers from Repent America, a Christian ministry, appeared at various Gay Game venues to share their particular message about homosexuality. On July 15, the volunteers demonstrated around Soldier Field, where the opening ceremonies were taking place. A Chicago police officer directed the group off a public sidewalk and onto an adjacent gravel field. On July 16, volunteers arrived at Navy Pier for a similar demonstration. Again, Chicago police officers directed the group away from Navy Pier and the adjacent Gateway Park because they did not have a permit. A few volunteers were ultimately arrested. On July 22, one of the volunteers paced back and forth on the sidewalk outside of Wrigley Field, where the closing ceremonies were taking place. A Chicago police officer arrested him when he refused to stop his demonstration and "keep walking." The Repent America volunteers filed suit against the City of Chicago, several police officers, and the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (which owns Navy Pier and Gateway Park). They alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and state law. Judge Shadur (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first addressed the First Amendment and equal protection claims related to the activities at Soldier Field and Wrigley Field. The Court conceded that the public sidewalks outside these two venues are traditional public forums and that access could not be broadly denied. But the time, place, and manner of activities at those locations can be regulated if the regulation: a) is content neutral, b) is narrowly tailored in support of a significant government interest, and c) allows for alternatives. The Court found that the police conduct at Soldier Field and Wrigley Field met those requirements. Plaintiffs presented no evidence of any police hostility to their message and, at both venues, they were simply directed away from busy pedestrian sidewalks and into locations where they could, and did, deliver their message. There was no First Amendment violation. The Court also concluded that there was no equal protection violation, in that plaintiffs were unable to identify similarly situated individuals that received preferential treatment. The Court also concluded that the arrest at Wrigley Field was not a Fourth Amendment violation. There was probable cause to believe that the volunteer was committing the offense of disorderly conduct. The Court turned to the allegations concerning the demonstration at Navy Pier and Gateway Park. The MPEA has a written policy for public expression at those venues. The policy requires a permit. The Court upheld the policy with respect to Navy Pier. Navy Pier is principally a private enterprise with some public benefits. The Policy for permits is first-come, first-served and viewpoint neutral. The volunteers never applied for a permit and there is no evidence in the record that the MPEA was hostile toward their views. Unlike Navy Pier, Gateway Park is a traditional public forum. The policy must be considered under the content neutral, narrowly tailored, ample alternative test. The Court was particularly troubled by the requirement that a group as small as five had to apply for a permit and give seven days notice and that a group smaller than five (including, apparently, an individual) also had to apply for a permit but without any notice requirement. The Court noted that five of its sister circuits have found permit requirements for groups as small as 10 constitutionally suspect. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the constitutionality of the Gateway Park permit requirement had to be considered in light of all the facts and circumstances, which were not addressed below. It remanded the claim for further proceedings. For much the same reasons as applied to the Soldier Field and Wrigley Field claims, the equal protection and Fourth Amendment summary judgment orders relating to Navy Pier and Gateway Park were affirmed.

Judge Hamilton concurred with the parts of the opinion relating to Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, and Navy Peer. He dissented from that portion of the opinion remanding the Gateway Park claims to the district court. He posited that plaintiffs waived the argument by not presenting it in a timely manner in the district court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HARVEY v. TOWN OF MERRILLVILLE (July 11, 2011)

The mostly African-American residents of a Merrillville, Indiana subdivision were unhappy with their retention pond. It frequently flooded and they thought it attracted mosquitoes. When town officials considered a subdivision expansion, the residents became even more concerned. They attempted to express those concerns to town officials. They claim that the officials ignored them, subjected them to racial slurs, and were generally less responsive than they were to the white residents of a different subdivision. Several of the residents filed suit pursuant to § 1983 alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. They also brought many state law claims. They named as defendants the Town, the town engineer, and a large number of other town employees. In a December 2, 2010 order, Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants (but failed to mention the engineer) on the ground that plaintiffs failed to identify a similarly situated class. He also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and "remanded" the case to state court. After the engineer sought clarification, the court issued an order the following day pursuant to Rule 60(a) granting summary judgment to the engineer. A few months later, the district court entered Rule 58 judgment as to all defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the December 2 order, but mentioned all defendants. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of appeal with respect to the December 3 order or the later judgment.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Kanne, and Tinder affirmed as modified. The Court first rejected the engineer's arguments that: a) plaintiffs failed to effectively appeal summary judgment in his favor because they did not appeal from the December 3 order or the later judgment, and b) plaintiffs waived their argument as to him by not developing it adequately. With respect to the former, the Court noted that failed attempts to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3  are generally not fatal if the appellee is not harmed. Here, the appellant's identified the engineer by name and even included a copy of the judgment in their brief, which also named him. Their technical noncompliance does not prevent the Court from having jurisdiction. With respect to the latter, the Court acknowledged many deficiencies in the briefing but concluded that plaintiffs addressed the engineer enough to avoid waiver. On the merits, the Court agreed that plaintiffs failed to make out an equal protection claim sufficient to get past summary judgment. To do that, the plaintiffs had to present evidence that they were in a protected class, that they were similarly situated to others in an unprotected class, and that they were treated differently. They did present some evidence of similarities with the residents of another subdivision but they failed to carry the day. There was more evidence of substantial differences between the groups, including subdivision zoning differences and the fact that the other subdivision did not even have a retention pond. In addition, plaintiffs failed to present evidence, other than their pleadings, that the other residents even belonged to an unprotected class. And finally, the record seems to show that the other residents group was actually treated less favorably than the plaintiffs. The district court did err, however, in remanding the case to state court. The case did not originate in state court and cannot be remanded there. The district court should have dismissed without prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HEYDE v. PITTENGER (January 11, 2011)

Raymond Heyde owns residential property in Tazewell County, Illinois, just south of Peoria. In late 2003, Heyde received his 2004 tax assessment notice. He filed a complaint with the County Board of Review, asserting that the $207,000 assessment was too high (the proper assessment level is 33 1/3% of the property's fair cash value). The Board reduced the assessment to $140,000. He complained again after he received his 2005 notice, which increased the assessment to $149,000. The Board declined to reduce their assessment. The assessment went up again in 2006, to $153,000. Again, he complained and submitted a then-recent $435,000 property appraisal (which would result in a $145,000 assessment). The Board not only did not reduce the assessment, but increased it to $436,000 in a June 1, 2006 decision. Heyde continued to complain about his assessment each year -- the Board refused to budge. Heyde appealed the June 1 decision to the Illinois Property Tax Appeal Board. Although the Appeal Board reduced the assessment, Heyde was still dissatisfied and has sought administrative review in state court. He also has additional appeals before the Appeal Board for subsequent years. In 2007, Heyde filed a § 1983 action against the members of the Board and the County Assessors. He alleged that the defendants deprived him of equal protection rights, conspired to deprive him of his equal protection rights and retaliated against him for exercising his lawful challenge rights. Judge Mihm (C.D. Ill.) concluded that the members of the Board had absolute immunity and dismissed the complaint as to them. He dismissed without prejudice as to the Assessors based on principles of comity on the grounds that Heyde had not exhausted state remedies. Heyde appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy, Rovner, and Evans affirmed. Addressing first case against the Board members, the Court noted that absolute immunity does apply to a quasi-judicial adjudicatory body when it acts in a capacity functionally equivalent to that of a judge or prosecutor. It does not, however, apply to administrative or ministerial acts. Relying on the Board’s statutory authority and the Court’s own precedent, the Court concluded that Board members were entitled to absolute immunity. They fit neatly within the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Butz. The Court turned to the claims against the Assessors. In McNary, the Supreme Court held that challenges to state tax systems must occur within the state’s courts, with final review in the Supreme Court. A § 1983 action is therefore not the proper vehicle. The Court rejected Heyde's argument that the Illinois system failed to meet the "plain, speedy and efficient" exception to the McNary rule. The Court recognized the delays inherent in the Illinois system but concluded (not for the first time) that they were not enough to avoid McNary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LABELLA WINNETKA, INC. v. THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA (December 29, 2010)

LaBella Winnetka operated as a restaurant in Winnetka, Illinois since 1993. It occupies a leased space and renews the lease from time to time. It also has a liquor license. Each year, Winnetka sends it a renewal form. Each year LaBella completes the form and Winnetka renews the license. A fire at the building in early 2007 damaged the roof over the LaBella dining room and forced its closure. The Village refused to allow repairs to the restaurant’s interior until the roof was fixed. It also refused to allow LaBella to reopen the undamaged portion of its leased premises. At the same time, other restaurants, even one operating out of the same building, were allowed to reopen in allegedly similar circumstances. LaBella's most recent liquor license was due to expire in March of 2008. Winnetka never sent a renewal form and terminated the license went LaBella did not file for renewal. LaBella brought suit against the Village and the Village Manager, alleging a violation of its equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process rights. The complaint alleged that the benefits bestowed on the other restaurants came about because of their friendships with the Village Manager. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss. LaBella appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first considered the "class of one" equal protection claim. In order to state such a claim, one must allege treatment different from others "similarly situated." LaBella concedes that the restaurants that were allowed to reopen did not incur the same major fire damage as the LaBella roof. They are therefore not "similarly situated" and the equal protection claim fails. The Court next considered and rejected LaBella's substantive due process claim relating to its property interest in its lease and business. In order to prevail on that claim, LaBella had to show an independent constitutional violation or the inadequacy of state law remedies. It did neither. Finally, the Court rejected LaBella's procedural due process claims related to the liquor license non-renewal. First, to the extent the claim is based on the Village's simple failure to send a renewal form, there was no constitutional deprivation. Second, to the extent the claim is that the Village revoked the license without notice or hearing, the allegations of the complaint fall far short of even the notice pleading requirements of the federal rules. Finally, the claim fails because LaBella does not even allege that it took advantage of post-deprivation remedies or that they were inadequate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ABCARIAN v. MCDONALD (August 13, 2010)

Dr. Herand Abcarian was a senior surgeon at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago. Over time, he clashed frequently with co-employees over issues like recruitment, compensation, risk management, and benefits. He alleges that several of these co-employees conspired to defame him and deprive him of his constitutional rights. In particular, he alleges: a) they caused the University to settle a malpractice claim against him for almost $1 million, b) the reported the malpractice settlement to federal and state databanks, and c) they caused the malpractice plaintiff's attorney to file suit against Abcarian only to then have it dismissed as a result of the settlement. Abcarian brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging constitutional violations of his right to free speech, equal protection, and procedural due process. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) dismissed for failure to state a claim. He also denied Abcarian's requests to amend the judgment and to amend his complaint. Abcarian appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court first addressed his First Amendment claim that he was retaliated against for his speech. Garcetti dealt with an employer's retaliation and the Court noted that it had already reserved judgment once about whether that rule applied to a co-employee's retaliation. Again, the Court ducked the question whether Garcetti applies to all employees but did conclude that it applies to employees whose actions are advancing the interests of their employer. The Court also concluded that a practical view of the speech, keeping in mind Abcarian's role and the content and context of the speech, lead to the conclusion that he spoke as a public employee under Garcetti, not as a private citizen. His speech was therefore not protected. Abcarian's equal protection claim was a "class-of-one" claim under which a plaintiff need not allege a suspect classification. The plaintiff must, however, allege arbitrary treatment without a rational basis. The basis of Abcarian's claim is that the defendants reported the malpractice settlement. But they had no discretion in the matter. Federal and state law required the report and would have exposed them to punishment had they failed to report. The Court concluded that the lack of discretion precluded an equal protection claim. Abcarian's third constitutional claim was a procedural due process claim based on the defendants' defamation. In order for defamation to rise to the level of a due process violation, a plaintiff must allege that was stigmatized by publicly disclosed information and that he suffered a loss of employment opportunities. The Court concluded that Abcarian could not meet this test because he still maintains his same positions at the Medical Center and College of Medicine. One cannot be thought to have been deprived of something that one still possesses. Finally, the Court concluded that Abcarian could not and did not meet the test for a Rule 59(e) motion. Since a post-judgment amendment would only be allowed if his Rule 59(e) motion was granted and it was clear that the district court had entered a final judgment, Abcarian was also not entitled to amend his complaint.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MUSCARELLO v. OGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (June 24, 2010)

Ogle County, Illinois joined the "green" movement in 2003 by amending its zoning ordinances to allow for the construction of windmills. Baileyville Wind Farms received the first special use permit for 40 windmills in 2005. The county also adopted a plan to protect residential, but not non-residential, property owners in the event of any diminution of property value. Patricia Muscarello owns nonresidential property adjacent to the proposed windfarm and has opposed its siting from the beginning. Unsuccessful in her attempts to block the project locally, Muscarello brought suit. She brought constitutional claims (unlawful taking, due process, equal protection), common law claims (trespass, nuisance), and state law claims (declaratory judgment, administrative review, writ of certiorari, unlawful taking, due process, equal protection, injunctive relief). She named over forty defendants, including Ogle County and related entities and individuals, the parties to the administrative proceedings, and Baileyville and its corporate parents. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill) dismissed all the federal and common law claims as either unripe or for failure to state a claim. He then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. He also denied a request by Baileyville to stay administrative proceedings regarding the expiration of the special use permit. Both parties appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the three federal constitutional claims. The takings claim alleged no physical taking but relied on the “regulatory taking” concept. Under that concept, the permit must render her land useless for her to prevail. That is not the case here. Alternatively, the Court noted that Muscarello’s takings claim fails also because she failed to exhaust available state remedies. The Court rejected her equal protection claim that addressed the differential treatment afforded to residential and nonresidential landowners. Not only was it also unripe because of her failure to exhaust, the Court concluded that it would meet the deferential "rational basis" test. With respect to the due process claim, the Court concluded that Muscarello had no protectable property interest in the lifting of restrictions on adjacent property. The Court next addressed the state common-law claims, for which Muscarello asserted diversity jurisdiction. The district court never resolved the jurisdictional question, dismissing instead on ripeness grounds. On appeal, the Court considered both issues. The Court applied its citizenship analysis and concluded that Muscarello established diversity jurisdiction. On the merits, however, the Court agreed with the district court that Illinois law requires an invasion for both a trespass and nuisance. Since the windmills have not yet been built, there is no invasion -- and no trespass or nuisance. Finally, the Court considered the several state claims for which Muscarello asserted supplemental jurisdiction. It found no abuse of discretion for the dismissal of those claims. However, since it had just established that diversity jurisdiction did exist, it questioned whether the district court should have kept these claims under diversity jurisdiction. Although a plaintiff has the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction, a district court should rarely dismiss when jurisdiction in fact exists but was improperly pleaded. Here, the plaintiff had been given several opportunities to properly plead jurisdiction -- and she failed to do so. The Court decided not to do it for her. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Baileyville’s requested stay.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PARRA v. NEAL (June 23, 2010)

Ambrosio Medrano filed the necessary papers to get his name listed as a candidate for 25th Ward Chicago alderman on the February 2007 ballot. Several voters challenged his papers. They asserted that his prior felony conviction prevented him from holding office. The Election Board and the circuit court sided with Medrano. Paper and electronic ballots were prepared with his name. Just four days before the election, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the circuit court. It ordered the Election Board to either remove Medrano’s name from the ballot or, if it remained, to disregard any votes cast for him. The Election Board had insufficient time to correct the ballots. Instead, it posted signs in three languages at all polling places and distributed individual notices to every voter in the ward in which his name was on the ballot. The signs and notices explained that a vote for Medrano would not be counted. Nevertheless, Medrano received 178 votes. Eight of those voters brought an action pursuant to § 1983 claiming that the Election Board violated equal protection by disregarding their votes. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Tinder affirmed. The Court emphasized the reluctance of a federal court to become entangled in state election matters. A § 1983 action can therefore prevail only if the defendants acted willfully and intended to undermine the voting process or impair the plaintiffs' voting rights. The Court found no proof -- or even allegation -- of wrongdoing on the part of the Election Board. In fact, it did what it had to do by following the mandate of the Supreme Court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SANDRA T.E. v. GRINDLE (March 17, 2010)

Three female elementary school classmates at Pershing Elementary School attended a seminar on "inappropriate touching" at their school in May of 2001. After the seminar, they wrote a short letter to the presenter stating that they were uncomfortable with the conduct of their band teacher. The presenter shared the note with Karen Grindle, Pershing's principal. Although Grindle met with the band teacher, the students, some parents, and the school's social worker, the accounts of their meetings varied. The allegations are that Grindle downplayed the significance and the seriousness of the accusations. Additional incidents surfaced in January and April of the following year. Again, Grindle is alleged to have minimized the significance of the incidents. One of the students who wrote the original letter in 2001 revealed to her mother, in 2005, her version of what happened. Her mother informed the police, a criminal investigation was launched, other victims came forward, and the band teacher pleaded guilty to multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Several of the children and their parents filed an action pursuant to section 1983, alleging a violation of their equal protection and substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment on the section 1983 claim to all defendants except Grindle and the band teacher. Grindle appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Hamilton affirmed. The basis of Grindle's appeal is her claim to qualified immunity. The Court recited the familiar two-part test: whether a constitutional right was violated, and whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct. With respect to the equal protection claim, the Court concluded that well-developed law at the time of Grindle's conduct held that a supervisor could be liable for deliberately ignoring an equal protection violation of her subordinate. In addition, the sexual harassment by the subordinate was a well-established equal protection violation. The Court concluded that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that Grindle intentionally discriminated against the girls to withstand summary judgment. With respect to the substantive due process claim, Grindle argued that she had no duty to protect the students from the abuse at the hands of the band teacher. The Court agreed that state officials do not generally have an obligation to protect citizens from violence, but noted the "special relationship" exception to that rule. Although the Court agreed that it had once rejected the "special relationship" theory in the student context, it also noted that the Third Circuit held otherwise in Stoneking. The Stoneking decision has been recognized in the circuit as one that is viable and, in fact, has been followed on several occasions in the district courts of the circuit. The Court concluded that a reasonable elementary school principal should have concluded that she could be liable for ignoring, or even covering up, a teacher's sexual abuse of a student. Finally, the Court noted that the plaintiffs allege that Grindle's own actions establish the constitutional violation, and not just her mere failure to act or prevent. Thus, they meet the test of Iqbal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

REGET v. LA CROSSE (February 8, 2010)

John Reget has operated an auto restoration and body shop business in La Crosse, Wisconsin for several decades. For almost as long, he and the City have been at odds. In 1980, the City condemned his building and gave him the funds to relocate and remodel his current building. In the early 1990s, the City cited Reget a number of times for ordinance violations pertaining to junk dealers. All the citations were ultimately dismissed. In the mid-1990s, the City threatened to rezone the area of Reget's current building. The move would have forced Reget to relocate yet again. The City backed down -- but only after Reget promised to comply with the ordinances, build a fence, and limit his nighttime operations. Both sides claim the other failed to live up to its bargain. Reget filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his Equal Protection rights as a result of the City's selective enforcement of its ordinances. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Reget appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that Reget's Equal Protection claim was of the class-of-one variety. For such a claim to prevail, a plaintiff must prove that he or she has been treated differently than others similarly situated and that no rational basis exists for such differentiation. The Court concluded that he failed to identify a similarly situated business with respect to any of his claims of discriminatory treatment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

AVILA v. PAPPAS (January 4, 2010)

Maria Avila was already in trouble. Her employer, the Cook County Treasurer's Office, was about to conduct a disciplinary hearing. Avila made it worse when she told one of her coworkers that she might "go postal." Her coworker advised her superiors. They not only added a disciplinary count for the implied threat and fired her but alerted the authorities. Avila was criminally prosecuted. The prosecutor charged a felony, taking the position that one of the targets of Avila's threat was a public official. Avila was acquitted, the court holding that he was not a public official. Avila filed suit against her superiors pursuant to §1983, alleging both constitutional violations and state law malicious prosecution. Although the court dismissed the federal counts, it retained the state law claim under supplemental jurisdiction and resolved it on the merits in favor of the defendants. Avila appeals the judgment on the state law claim.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Tinder vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction. Although Avila asserted four federal law theories, the Court emphasized that a federal claim must have substance to create a basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the federal claims -- substantive due process, conspiracy, failure to train, and equal protection -- were frivolous. The Court principally relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Albright and the Court's own decision in Newsome, holding that malicious prosecution does not violate the Constitution if state law recognizes it as a tort (which Illinois does).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SRAIL v. VILLAGE OF LISLE (December 7, 2009)

The Oak View subdivision was built in the 1950s. Since its earliest days, a private utility company has provided its residents with water. The Village of Lisle developed its municipal water system in 1967. The municipal system has grown as developers have donated water mains serving new projects. Lisle also purchased a private water utility in 1980. Although both the municipal system and the Oak View system receive their water from the DuPage Water Commission, the Oak View system has insufficient pressure for firefighting. Residents of Oak View sued the Village, alleging that the Village violated the Equal Protection Clause by providing municipal water to some residents and not others. The court granted summary judgment to the Village. The residents appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted that the residents are not members of a suspect class and they do not allege an infringement of a fundamental right. Therefore, the Court's review is on the rational basis test. Although the Court identified issues with the plaintiffs' status as a "class of one" and with an illegitimate animus requirement, it found it unnecessary to reach either issue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist, the Court stated that government activity which involves discretionary decision-making based on a number of objective criteria need not treat all persons equally. The Village's decisions over the years to build and extend its system were based on individual assessments made at those times. There is no clear standard that the Village used and that the Court could use to judge any departures therefrom. The Court concluded that it was doubtful that the residents' claim would survive the Engquist test. The Court went on, however, and concluded that the residents failed to establish an equal protection violation. First, they were unable to establish the existence of an appropriate comparator. Second, the cost of extending the system, the apparent lack of interest on the part of most residents, and the Village's desire to avoid competition with the private utility amounted to a rational basis for its conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HANES v. ZURICK (August 18, 2009)

Apparently, Stephen Hanes and his neighbors in Grayslake, Illinois have been unable to get along for quite some time. The feud has resulted in numerous complaints to the local police. According to Hanes' complaint that the Grayslake police officers denied him equal protection of the law, the police always blame Hanes and arrest him. He has been arrested at least eight times – and every charge was dropped. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint both for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the officers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, although it did not specifically mention qualified immunity. The officers appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Williams affirmed. Because a ruling on the qualified immunity defense was a necessary basis for the Court's jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal and because the district court did not specifically mention qualified immunity, the Court first addressed its jurisdiction. The qualified immunity issue was fully briefed below, the district court addressed both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry, and the district court gave no indication that it intended not to rule on any issue presented. The Court was therefore satisfied that it had jurisdiction to consider the order rejecting a qualified immunity defense. On the merits, the Court first considered the constitutional violation prong. The Court started with its opinion in Hilton, which recognized a class-of-one equal protection claim for unequal police treatment. The Hilton plaintiffs did not survive summary judgment because they failed to show that the unequal treatment was the result of personal animus. Personal animus is alleged here. Although the Court concluded that a constitutional violation existed under Hilton, it did consider the officers' argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist should prompt it to reconsider Hilton. In Engquist, the Supreme Court held that the class-of-one theory is not well-suited to the public employment context where government actors exercise "discretionary authority based on subjective, individualized determinations." The Court rejected the invitation to reconsider Hilton. It noted that although police officers enjoy broad discretion in their actions, their discretion is much more limited than that of a public employer. On the issue of whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the Court concluded that the officers were on notice as a result of Hilton.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SCHOR v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 13, 2009)

The City of Chicago passed an ordinance that prohibits the use of a mobile phone while driving unless it is used in conjunction with a "hands-free" device. Three individuals who were ticketed for violating the ordinance filed an action against the City, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and Illinois law. The district court dismissed the claims and refused to allow an amendment to the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected the Fourth Amendment claim. The officers making the stops observed each plaintiff violating the ordinance. Those observations provided probable cause for the stop – and thus no Fourth Amendment violation. The Equal Protection Clause claim was a "class of the one" claim. To succeed on that claim, the Court stated, the plaintiffs had to show that they were treated differently and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Here, the drivers were treated differently than other drivers who were not using mobile phones. The basis for the differential treatment, however, was the violation of an ordinance -- clearly a rational distinction. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' Monell claims as well. A direct claim against a municipality must be based on an underlying constitutional violation, which is not present here. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow an amendment to the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. In the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to include a claims that the ordinance violated their fundamental right to travel and a claim that the ordinance was void for vagueness. The plaintiffs failed to indicate how the ordinance infringed any right to travel or how its terms were so vague that an ordinary person could not understand.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

IDRIS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (January 5, 2009)

The City of Chicago (the City”) has installed cameras at intersections since 2003. They are used to identify drivers who fail to obey red lights. The ordinance makes the owner (or, in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee) of the vehicle liable for the fine – regardless of who was driving at the time. A group of car owners brought suit. Each had been fined for a traffic violation. In each case, however, someone other than the car’s owner was driving the car at the time of the violation. The plaintiffs allege that the ordinance violates due process and equal protection. The court granted summary judgment for the City. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court quickly disposed of plaintiffs’ substantive due process argument. It noted the absence of a fundamental liberty interest – a prerequisite for substantive due process. The Court then considered the enforcement system under the rational-basis doctrine. Again, it seemed to have little difficulty in finding the ordinance rational. The owner-liable system reduces the cost of enforcing the law and improves compliance with the law. The facts that it raises revenue and adopts a system different from the state system do not make it irrational. The distinction between owners and lessors is not discriminatory – it is, in fact, the rational approach. Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural due process arguments. Defenses and objections must be made at a hearing and reviewed in state court before they can be the subject of a federal court proceeding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FLYING J INC. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN (December 5, 2008)

Flying J develops and operates travel plazas for truck drivers and other travelers. It purchased 50+ acres in New Haven, Indiana (the “City”) to develop a new travel plaza. The City opposed the development and took the position that it was not allowed under the then-current zoning. Flying J ultimately prevailed in the Indiana state courts on its challenge to the City’s position. Undaunted, the City amended its zoning ordinance to limit developments of this type to two acres. The Flying J development was the only parcel affected by this limitation. The City held several public meetings on the amendment but never gave Flying J specific notice of them. In August of 2007, the City advised Flying J that its development must comply with the two acre rule. Flying J filed suit in September, alleging violations of its rights under the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Flying J appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the City’s position that the Court lacked jurisdiction under the principles of Williamson County. The Supreme Court in Williamson County held that takings claims in land use cases are not ripe until the local authority has reached a final decision, including a decision on a variance application and compensation. Courts have applied the doctrine to takings claims even when they are labeled as due process or equal protection claims. The Court noted that it has created an exception for claims alleging the malicious conduct of a government agent unrelated to a legitimate state objective. Flying J’s allegations of the City’s protracted litigation, its covert amendment to the ordinance, the ordinance’s application only to Flying J, and the potential conflicts of interest of several commission members fit its claim within that exception.

The Court next addressed whether Flying J stated a claim. Relying on its precedent in Wroblewski and Lauth, the Court identified the pleading standard for a class-of-one equal protection claim. In those cases, the plaintiff must negate any set of facts that provides a rational basis for the classification challenged. Animus of the defendant comes into play only after the plaintiff has pled facts that show the irrationality of the government’s conduct. Flying J does allege facts that would show that the City took its actions in response solely to Flying J’s development but it does not allege facts to establish that the zoning amendment was irrational. Flying J’s allegations therefore do not overcome the presumption of rationality the government enjoys in cases of this nature.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link