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

WRAGG v. VILLAGE OF THORNTON (May 7, 2010)

In 1997, Thornton Village President Jack Swan received an anonymous complaint that a village police officer had molested a minor boy. A few months later, with Swan's knowledge, the officer resigned and sought treatment for a cocaine habit. A few years later, Swan appointed that same officer the Village's fire chief. Soon thereafter, he was found molesting another minor boy, a member of the Village’s fire cadet program. The chief's propensities were the subject of much conversation throughout the department. A few years later, the chief was arrested for molesting yet another boy, also a fire cadet. Swan removed the chief from his post. The cadet sued the Village under § 1983, asserting that the Village retained the fire chief knowing his history of molesting minors and that their deliberate indifference violated his substantive due process rights. The court granted summary judgment to the Village. The cadet appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Wood affirmed. The Court acknowledged that the fire chief was a state actor and the cadet had a substantive due process right not to be harmed by him. Whether the Village was liable under Monell, however, depends on whether the injury was caused by an express policy or a widespread practice, or by a "person with final policymaking authority." Because the cadet alleged neither an express policy or widespread practice, the Court focused on whether the injury was caused by a person with final policymaking authority. The Court identified an issue of fact with respect to that inquiry. The Board of Trustees certainly had final power to appoint and remove the fire chief. The Court found it unclear, however, whether Swan had final authority to retain him. Either way, however, the claim failed. With respect to the board, the cadet presented evidence only with respect to one member. Municipal liability under Monell cannot be based on the isolated act of one member of a multi-member board. With respect to Swan, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Swan was on notice that the retention of the chief posed a substantial risk to the cadet. The Court conceded that there were "storm warnings" regarding the fire chief -- but found none of them sufficient to establish the deliberate indifference necessary for municipal liability.

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

LONDON v. RBS CITIZENS (April 1, 2010)

After Chase Bank obtained a judgment against Andrew and Carolyn London, it issued a Citation to Discover Assets to Charter One Bank. The citation prohibited Charter One from allowing any transfer or disposition of the London’s property "not exempt from execution." Included with the citation was a specific notice indicating that Social Security benefits were exempt funds. Charter One froze the London's accounts, including one into which Social Security benefits were deposited electronically. The Londons demanded that Charter One release the exempt funds -- Charter One refused. Over the course of the next several weeks, additional Social Security deposits were made to the account. They also were frozen and their release denied. The Londons filed suit under § 1983, claiming that the bank violated their constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The district court granted Charter One's motion to dismiss, concluding that the temporary freeze did not violate § 407(a) and that the Londons were afforded adequate process by a post-deprivation hearing in state court. The Londons appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Evans affirmed. In order to state any claim under § 1983, stated the Court, a plaintiff must allege the deprivation of a right guaranteed by the Constitution or laws and that the deprivation occurred at the hands of a person acting "under color of state law." Under that standard, private persons may not be sued for purely private conduct. Instead, for a private party to be held accountable under § 1983, the deprivation must be caused by the exercise of a right created or imposed by the state. Here, to the contrary, the bank was not following any state-imposed right or rule of conduct. The citation itself restricted its order to funds that were not exempt from execution and provided a notice that Social Security benefits were exempt. The bank's misapplication of the state law directive does not amount to conduct taken "under color of state law."

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

STOKES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (March 19, 2010)

Nyokia Stokes has four children who attend the same elementary school in Chicago. One of her children, a third-grade daughter, had a problem with a classmate. Ebony Scott, the classmate's mother, paid a visit to Stokes' home one night and allegedly threatened her. Stokes and her mother, Carnelita Stokes, met with the police and the school principal, Johnny Banks, the next morning. Banks agreed to host a meeting between Stokes and Scott. When Stokes and her mother returned to the school that very afternoon to pick up Stokes' kindergarten daughter, they encountered Ebony Scott and her cousin in the school office. The factual accounts of what happened next vary. What is clear is that Scott, Scott’s cousin, and Stokes were involved in a lengthy physical and verbal altercation. Most accounts agree that Scott was the aggressor and Stokes was the victim. Approximately thirty kindergarten students entered the office during the altercation and became extremely upset. Banks arrived in the office as the altercation was ending. He instructed Scott and her cousin to go into his office and instructed Stokes and her mother to go to another room. Stokes' mother refused to leave and continued yelling at Banks. Banks swore out criminal complaints against all four women and they were arrested. They were released several hours later and the charges against them were dismissed. The Stokes sued Banks and the school district under § 1983, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Stokes appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed. The gist of the Stokes' complaint is that Banks lacked probable cause to swear out the criminal complaints. The existence of probable cause, therefore, is an absolute bar to recovery. Because the case was decided on summary judgment, the Court examined the record to see if there was a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the existence of probable cause. A complaining witness is not expected to determine whether a person's behavior satisfies the essential elements of a crime. To the contrary, probable cause involves the exercise of judgment and depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Here, even resolving factual disputes in the Stokes' favor, the record shows that Banks entered the room and found Stokes involved in a violent and loud altercation. Many young school children were in the same room and visibly upset. Those undisputed facts provide probable cause for Banks to sign a criminal complaint against Stokes. Although Stokes' mother was not actually involved in a physical altercation, she was in the same room and Banks knew that she was Stokes' mother. Her yelling and refusal to comply with Banks' request to leave contributed to the chaos. Thus, Banks had probable cause to sign the complaint against Carnelita . The facts that were developed after the incident supported the Stokes' position that they were the victims of the altercation and that they did nothing to incite it nor did they retaliate. Nevertheless, the Court noted that Banks was not required to conduct an investigation. He was responsible for maintaining order and had to do so quickly. He exercised the judgment of a reasonable person in taking the action that he did.

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

TULLY v. BARADA (March 17, 2010)

One night a resident of Rush County, Indiana, saw automobile headlights and another light near a bridge several hundred yards from his home. When he heard a shot coming from the same direction, he called the sheriff. He called the sheriff a second time when he heard a second shot. In responding to the report, Sheriff Chandler stopped a vehicle occupied by Michael Tully and a friend. There was a spotlight, a rifle, and a dead raccoon in the car. Both boys responded "yes" when Sheriff Chandler asked if they knew that shooting from a roadway is wrong. The county prosecutor, Paul Barada, charged both boys as juveniles with "shooting on or across a public highway." A trial court adjudicated Tully as a delinquent -- the appellate court reversed. Tully brought an action under § 1983 against Barada and the probation officer upon whose report his complaint was based. He alleged a constitutional right not to be summoned into court and prosecuted without probable cause. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that there is no such right. Tully appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Wood and District Judge Kennelly affirmed. The Court first noted that the Supreme Court has not spoken on the possibility of a right not to be prosecuted without probable cause. The Courts of Appeals that have spoken have taken various approaches. In fact, the issue is infrequently presented because prosecutors generally claim absolute immunity. Here, the Court noted that defendants waived not only their affirmative defense of absolute immunity, but also the affirmative defenses of the existence of probable cause and res judicata. Having been required to reached the merits, the Court concluded that there is no federal constitutional right under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment not to be summoned into court and prosecuted without probable cause. Being summoned into court is not a "seizure" of Tully under the Fourth Amendment -- his state court vindication was due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

MINIX v. CANARECCI (February 26, 2010)

While on leave from a mental hospital where he was a patient, Gregory Zick was arrested and incarcerated in the St. Joseph County Jail. The jail provided medical and mental health services through contracts with third-party vendors Memorial Home Care and Madison Center. Jail personnel became aware during Zick's booking that he had attempted suicide in the past and was taking medications to treat his suicidal thoughts. Zick was originally put in medical segregation and on suicide watch. He was transferred into the general population, however, a few days later after he denied having suicidal thoughts. About a month later, he was placed back in medical segregation after he refused to take his medication and a jail officer noticed a razor blade missing. Again, after a few days, he was released from medical segregation because he was alert and denied thoughts of suicide. Later that night, he hanged himself with a bed sheet. Cathy Minix, his personal representative, brought an action pursuant to § 1983 against the Sheriff, the medical providers, and several jail employees. She alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments based on the defendants' display of deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants except the Sheriff. Minix then accepted an offer of judgment from the Sheriff. She appeals the summary judgment rulings in favor of Memorial Home Care and its employee Dr. David, Madison Center and its employee Christine Lonz, and the supervisor of the nursing staff, Jeanne James.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction, in light of the offer of judgment and its acceptance. Since the claim against the Sheriff was against him in his official capacity, and therefore could not have included punitive damages under § 1983, the punitive damage claims against the other defendants present a live controversy, even if the acceptance of the offer of judgment limits additional compensatory damages. On the merits, the Court first identified the two elements of an inadequate medical care claim under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment: a substantial risk to one's safety because of an objectively serious harm, and deliberate indifference to that risk. A jail suicide case automatically satisfies the first element. The second element requires that each defendant know that there is a substantial risk of suicide -- and intentionally disregard it. The Court addressed each defendant under that standard and found summary judgment proper in each case: a) Lonz was unaware of Zick’s suicidal history or thoughts, b) there was no evidence that Madison Center adopted or condoned any unconstitutional policy and there was no causal link between any Madison Center practice and the suicide, c) Zick's behavior in segregation did not provide Nurse James with actual knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide, d) Dr. David was not directly involved in Zick's treatment, and e) there was a lack of evidence that Memorial Home condoned or adopted an unconstitutional practice.

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

WORLD OUTREACH CONFERENCE CENTER v. CITY OF CHICAGO (December 30, 2009)

In Chicago, the World Outreach Conference Center ("WOCC") operates a community center. It is a Christian organization, one of whose goals is to assist and provide relief to the needy and suffering. WOCC purchased the center in 2005 from the YMCA. Although the land was rezoned several years ago, YMCA's operations were a legal nonconforming use. WOCC wants to operate the building by renting out its many apartments – just as the YMCA did. The Center did need a single-room-occupancy (SRO) license to operate. Apparently because an alderman had wanted a financial backer to acquire the property, the City refused to grant the license. WOCC brought suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), challenging the City's refusal to grant the license. Although the City eventually did grant the license, the suit continued with its claim for damages. The court dismissed the complaint. WOCC appeals.

In Peoria, the Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church purchased property adjacent to its church. It wanted to raze the building in order to build a family center. The City, in response to a neighborhood group’s application, designated the building a landmark and blocked the demolition. Trinity brought suit under RLUIPA, alleging that the landmark designation imposed a substantial burden on religious activities. The court granted summary judgment to Peoria. Trinity appeals. 

In their opinion (in these consolidated cases), Judges Cudahy, Posner and Rovner affirmed in part and reversed in part in Chicago and affirmed in Peoria. RLUIPA prohibits government land-use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on religious activities unless it is in support of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means to the end. It also prohibits non-equal or discriminatory treatment directed at a religious assembly through land-use regulation. The Court first addressed and rejected Chicago’s argument that RLUIPA exceeds Congress’ authority, relying on the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. On the merits in WOCC, the Court concluded that the dismissal of WOCC’s substantial-burden claim was erroneous. WOCC was entitled to operate without the special use permit demanded by the City and the City had no basis for refusing the SRO license. The burden was substantial and there was no compelling government interest. The Court also: a) affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claim (WOCC was badly treated – but it had nothing to do with religion), b) reversed the dismissal of the equal protection claim (on a class-of-one theory), and c) affirmed the dismissal of the damages claim for violation of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance.On the merits in Peoria, the Court concluded that the burden imposed on Trinity did not reach “substantial.” The property had value and could be sold and there are suitable alternatives for the family center.

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

KNIGHT v. WISEMAN (December 22, 2009)

Shortly before Rick Knight began serving a prison term, he had surgery on his shoulder. Although he had no medical work restrictions, he did advise prison personnel of the surgery and some lingering pain. Nevertheless, several months later, he was transferred to a work camp. Prison inmates at the work camp participate in the work gangs, typically trimming trees and picking up roadside logs. At the camp, Knight participated in several work details without complaint, although he was generally successful in finding the less-strenuous tasks. On February 16, Knight was assigned to a work gang with Officers Wiseman and Wiedau. Although Knight again selected easier tasks, the officers insisted he do more. They were unaware of his shoulder complaints. The result -- he re-injured his shoulder throwing a log. A third officer returned Knight to the camp, although he took a short detour to run an errand on the way. Knight was diagnosed with a torn rotator cuff. He brought suit against the two officers pursuant to § 1983, alleging violations of this Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, concluding that they did not act with deliberate indifference. Knight appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Wood affirmed. Two elements are required to state a claim for an Eighth amendment violation. There must be a serious medical condition and the plaintiff must demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part of the prison official to that condition. Deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant was actually aware of the serious medical condition. Here, there is no evidence in the record that the officers were aware of Knight's condition when they first ordered him to work. Although one of the officers ordered Knight back to work after his first complaint of pain, he quickly retracted his order when he realized the seriousness of Knight's injury. Finally, the Court rejected Knight's argument that the few hour delay in receiving treatment, including the brief detour, amounted to deliberate indifference. Such a claim would require medical evidence that showed his condition deteriorated due to the delay, which does not exist here.

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

GUNVILLE v. WALKER (October 9, 2009)

Robert Gunville and Richard Oakley had both worked for the Illinois Department of Corrections for over twenty years, all during Republican administrations, when a Democratic governor was elected in 2003. Both were laid off within months of the new administration’s inauguration. Gunville was an active member of the Republican Party while Oakley had a record of voting in Republican primaries. Gunville and Oakley brought suit, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. They also allege a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of their placement on a reemployment list for only their last county of employment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Gunville and Oakley appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Sykes affirmed. In first addressing their First Amendment claim, the Court noted that there was no dispute that their speech was constitutionally protected and that they suffered a deprivation. The issue on appeal was whether the layoff came as a result of their political affiliation. In order to establish the unlawful motivation, the plaintiffs must first establish that the defendants knew of their political affiliation. After concurring with the district court's hearsay ruling on one particular statement, the Court concluded that there was a complete absence of evidence that the persons deciding which jobs to eliminate knew of plaintiffs' political affiliations. The Court came to the same conclusion with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The due process clause does not provide an opportunity to challenge the meaning of a regulation, the relief plaintiffs sought. To the extent that plaintiffs assert political retaliation, the due process argument suffers from the same complete absence of evidence as the First Amendment claim.

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

HOLLINS v. MILWAUKEE (July 31, 2009)

David Hollins is a freelance photographer. One June day in 2002, he was walking down a Milwaukee street. He came upon a scene where the Milwaukee Police were conducting a search of a home across the street. Hollins began taking pictures. A police officer noticed Hollins and asked him to move away from the area. Although he moved a short distance, Hollins eventually stopped and refused to move further. Police officers arrested Hollins and cited him for resisting an officer. The parties' versions of the events differ greatly with respect to the amount of force used by the officers and the attitude and language of the participants. Hollins was convicted and paid a fine. He later sued the city and the officers for violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brought a § 1983 claim against the City of Milwaukee for failure to train police officers properly. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 claim and dismissed the free speech and due process claims as well. A jury found for the defendants on the unlawful arrest and excessive force claims. Hollins appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court first addressed the § 1983 claim for failure to properly train the police. The Court agreed that a failure to train police can lead to § 1983 liability if it amounts to a deliberate indifference of public rights. The Court further stated that Hollins had to present allegations of a specific pattern of incidents to prove that the constitutional deprivation resulted from an official policy or custom. Hollins, however, failed to offer any evidence that the city's failure to train amounted to the requisite deliberate indifference. The city, on the other hand, presented unrebutted evidence that it did offer significant training in the areas cited by Hollins. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the free-speech claims, concluding that Hollins' allegations that he was arrested for taking pictures totally unsupported. With respect to the alleged trial errors, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it: a) refused to ask a voir dire question on racial prejudice that had nothing to do with the law or facts, b) disallowed questioning on cross-examination that one of the defendants had been investigated for falsifying police reports when it had limited probative value, and c) refused to tender Hollins' jury instruction interpreting the ordinance under which he was cited when he offered no authority to support his interpretation and when the jury was not being asked to determine whether the ordinance had been violated.

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

BUCHANAN-MOORE v. COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE (June 29, 2009)

Sidney Gray, a mentally ill man, was well known to the Milwaukee Police Department. In the 10 years preceding July of 2006, he was arrested at least 35 times. Many of those arrests stemmed from violent episodes. He was also committed to the county's mental-health facilities on several occasions. County doctors understood that certain medications reduced Gray's violent episodes. In a five-week episode in June and July of 2006, Gray was arrested, committed, released from commitment, arrested for home invasion, held without medication, released by mistake, arrested again for home invasion, held again without his medication, and again released without charges being filed. Shortly thereafter, Gray shot and killed Frank Moore after breaking into the house next door to Moore's. Moore's survivors brought a section 1983 suit against the County, alleging that Gray’s release after a 72- hour confinement in a county facility without his medication was a violation of Moore’s civil rights. The court entered judgment for the County. The survivors appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that the 14th Amendment generally does not impose on the state a duty to protect against harm by private individuals. An exception exists to not place one in a position of danger that otherwise would not have existed. Under this exception, the Court noted that the state must affirmatively create or increase the danger and the state's actions must be the proximate cause of the injury. Here, the Court held that the County's conduct was not proximate cause of Moore's death in that Moore was not a foreseeable victim of the County's actions. Gray was not known to carry a weapon, he did not pose a threat to any definable population, and any danger he posed was not of finite duration. The Court concluded that Moore's death was too remote a consequence to hold the County liable under section 1983.

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

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA v. CITY OF CHICAGO (June 2, 2009)
 

The City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park, Illinois both ban the possession of most handguns. The Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, holding that the Second Amendment prohibited the District of Columbia from banning the possession of handguns for self protection. The National Rifle Association then sued the municipalities. The district court dismissed the suits against Chicago and Oak Park because Heller dealt with the authority of the District of Columbia. In other, older cases the Supreme Court has refused to apply the Second Amendment to the states. The NRA appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Posner affirmed. The Court conceded that the Supreme Court, in Cruikshank, Presser and Miller, was presented with arguments based on the privileges and immunities clause. The NRA argues that the Second Amendment should be applied to the states under the "selective incorporation" approach that was not argued in those cases. The Court rejected that argument, stating that it is bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent if it has "direct application" to the case, even if a different argument is presented and even if the original reasoning has been brought into question over time. The Second Amendment precedent does have direct application as is evident from the Supreme Court's footnote 23 in Heller itself. There, the Supreme Court specifically commented that the continuing vitality of that precedent was not before it. The Court concluded that it is up to the Supreme Court to revisit the issue, even if the current legal theory is not the one addressed by the precedent. The Court added its own view that it is not convinced, as some others are, that the Supreme Court will change its approach to the Second Amendment when afforded the opportunity.

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

BOWENS v. QUINN (April 2, 2009)

The Illinois Constitution allows the governor of the state to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons "on such terms as he thinks proper." An Illinois statute provides the procedural framework for the exercise of the governor's power. Twelve people who had filed petitions for clemency brought an action against the governor, alleging a violation of their due process rights under the 14th Amendment because of the governor's failure to act on their petitions within a reasonable time. While a motion to dismiss was pending, the governor acted on the petitions of nine of the plaintiffs, granting one and denying eight. The lower court denied the governor's motion to dismiss. The governor brought this interlocutory appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Wood reversed. The Court first addressed the issue of mootness with regard to the plaintiffs whose petitions had been processed. With respect to those plaintiffs whose petitions were denied, the Court determined that the claims were not moot on the grounds that they met the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" standard of Roe v. Wade. The claim of the plaintiff whose application was granted was, on the other hand, moot. On the merits, the Court concluded that there was no ground for the denial of due process claim. The 14th Amendment does not create a property or liberty interest in obtaining a pardon. The fact that the plaintiffs are not claiming an entitlement to a pardon, but merely an entitlement to a reasonably prompt decision, does not change the result.

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

RUJAWITZ v. MARTIN (April 2, 2009)

Mark Rujawitz was an at-will employee of theIllinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for thirteen years. When he violated an injunction requiring him to keep his distance from his ex-girlfriend, IDOT fired him. A disciplinary panel reviewed the discharge and recommended a lesser level of discipline. Rujawitz was reinstated and his discipline was changed to a suspension without pay. Rujawitz brought a § 1983 action against the secretary of IDOT, alleging that he was denied his substantive due process rights. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Rujawitz had no property right in continued employment. Rujawitz appeals

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner and Rovner affirmed. In order to establish a due process claim, the court stated, Rujawitz had to demonstrate a constitutionally protected property interest. The Court looked to state law for that determination. The Court could locate no ordinance, law or employment agreement that changed Rujawitz's status from an at-will employee to one with an expectation of continued employment. The Court rejected Rujawitz 's position that the presence and use of the disciplinary procedures established a property interest protectable under the Fourteenth Amendment.

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