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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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