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

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

TENNY v. BLAGOJEVICH (August 25, 2011)

An Illinois statute regulates prison commissaries’ sale of goods to inmates. Except for tobacco products, it prohibits any markup over cost in excess of 25%. A 2006 Illinois Inspector General audit concluded that the Illinois Department of Corrections was violating the statute and recommended corrective action. The Department rejected the recommendations and maintained its pricing. Several inmates at the Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet filed grievances. The grievances were denied. The inmates filed two separate lawsuits in federal district court pursuant to § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights and violations of the Illinois Constitution. Judges Norgle and Pallmeyer (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed and remanded. A procedural due process claim requires that the plaintiff allege a protected property interest, or legitimate claim of entitlement, under state law. Here, the Court assumed, without deciding, that the Illinois statutory cap created such a property interest. Even if there is a property interest, the inmates are not entitled to pre-deprivation review if it would be ineffectual. The Court concluded that no "process" would have prevented the Department from imposing its allegedly unlawful pricing policy. In this situation, an adequate post-deprivation remedy may satisfy due process. The inmates have not even alleged the inadequacy of a post-deprivation remedy. In fact, the Court concluded that the prison grievance procedures, a possible Court of Claims claim, and the availability of a state court claim were adequate post-deprivation remedies. Because both district courts dismissed the complaints with prejudice but neither district court addressed the state constitutional claim, the Court remanded the cases for dismissals of the state claims without prejudice.

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

MADDOX v. LOVE (August 24, 2011)

The Illinois Lawrence Correctional Center is a medium-security adult prison facility in Sumner, Illinois with approximately 2,000 inmates. Those inmates proclaim numerous different religious affiliations (46 as of May 2009). When Mannie Maddox arrived as an inmate in early 2004, he was a member of the African Hebrew Israelite (AHI) faith. AHI was one of the 17 religious affiliations for which Lawrence offered regularly scheduled services. Maddox attended services for about six months, until they were terminated. Maddox filed a grievance, asserting a denial of his right to exercise his religion. The prison denied the grievance on the grounds that Lawrence canceled the services for budgetary reasons. Maddox appealed the decision through two more stages of review without success. The prison chaplain also denied Maddox’ request to allow the AHI inmates to meet without a formal service. The prison requires that such meetings be supervised and the chaplain's schedule could not accommodate another religious gathering. Maddox filed a § 1983 complaint against the chaplain and the prison wardens alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Judge Gilbert (S.D. Ill.) restructured the pro se complaint into four counts. He dismissed for failure to state a claim the counts relating to discrimination in the allocation of the prison budget. He granted summary judgment on the two counts alleging failure to provide reasonable access to religious materials and failure to provide worship services, concluding that Maddox failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Maddox appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Sykes, Tinder, and Hamilton affirmed in part and reversed and vacated in part. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction, since the district court dismissed the two counts on exhaustion grounds without prejudice. Normally a dismissal without prejudice would preclude appellate jurisdiction. Here, however, Maddox cannot cure the complaint’s defects. That makes the decision a final judgment for appellate jurisdiction purposes. On the merits, the Court first addressed the free exercise and religious discrimination counts. The Court understood the district court's dismissal of these counts, as they were restructured, given the principle that prisons need not provide identical resources to every faith within the prison population. An allegation of a disproportionate allocation of resources does not state a claim. The Court did find fault, however, with the district court's restructuring of Maddox' allegations and explored the substance of those allegations. Maddox alleged a disproportionate allocation of resources to other religions, a singling out of AHI for budget cuts, and refusal to pursue alternatives for AHI members. The Court found that those allegations did, in fact, state a claim for relief. Prisons cannot discriminate against particular religions. Although it is premature to conclude that they did here, Maddox is allowed to make his case. The Court turned to the access to religious materials claim. Since Maddox concedes that he did not grieve that complaint, the Court concluded that the district court properly dismissed that count. Finally, on the group worship claim, the district court dismissed because Maddox failed to exhaust administrative remedies. He did not name the individuals he complained of, as required by the then-current Illinois Administrative Code. The Court disagreed. First, prison officials never raised this procedural infirmity during any of the three grievance stages. Instead, they rejected the grievance on the merits at each stage. When the prison addresses a grievance on the merits without addressing any procedural defect, the grievance has obviously served its purpose in notifying prison officials of the prisoner's complaint. They cannot later rely on that procedural defect to make out an exhaustion defense. Second, the procedural infirmity here was caused by prison's own error. Maddox was given a form that complied with a prior version of the administrative code. It did not require the same degree of factual particularly as did the code in effect at the time of the grievance. Maddox provided all the information that was requested on the grievance form.

• 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

On June 13, 2011, the Court granted the Board's Petition for Rehearing, vacated this opinion, and certified three questions to the Illinois Supreme Court.

CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (March 29, 2011)

Chicago's Board of Education operates the city's public school system and employs more than 20,000 teachers. In the summer of 2010, the Board laid off almost 1300 of them. The Board received an increase in federal funding toward the end of that summer and was able to recall over 700 teachers who had been given the layoff notices. The Board used no particular procedure or policy in the recall. The Board has also continued to fill vacancies as they open up in the system naturally, again without any particular policy with respect to laid off teachers. The Chicago Teachers Union filed suit complaining that the Board was filling many of those vacancies with new hires instead of recalls. They sought injunctive relief. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) concluded that the laid-off teachers had a property interest emanating from state law that entitled them to some retention procedures. The court also found that the Union met the other elements of injunctive relief and therefore entered an injunction ordering the Board to rescind the discharges of (although not reinstate) tenured teachers and to promulgate a set of recall rules in conjunction with the Union. The court enjoined further layoffs until such rules had been promulgated. The Board appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Manion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Williams and District Judge Clevert affirmed, with modifications to the injunction. In order to be entitled to Fourteenth Amendment due process protection, one must first establish the existence of a protected property (or liberty) interest. Property interest themselves are not created by the Constitution but come from independent sources, frequently state law. In the employment context, a property interest only arises when an employer's discretion to deny employment is limited. Under Illinois law, tenured teachers enjoy permanent employment, subject only to removal for clause. The Court concluded, therefore, that an Illinois tenured teacher has a property interest in continued employment. But establishing the property interest only takes us to the next question -- what process is due. Hearings are generally not necessary when the deprivation of the property interest is caused by a good faith economic layoff. Here, the Union does not challenge the good faith of the layoffs nor does it ask for hearings. Instead, it seeks opportunities for its members to compete for vacancies as they arise. The Court looked to state law prior to 1995, when Illinois had "reserve teachers." Basically, reserve teachers were competent teachers who were laid off but who had significant opportunities with respect to vacant positions. When the Legislature eliminated reserve teachers in 1995, it authorized the Board to establish procedures for layoffs and recall rights. Relying in large part on Illinois law interpreting the new provision, the Court concluded that the Board must use the "authority" given it by the Legislature to formulate layoff and recall procedures. Applying the Mathews weighing analysis, the Court noted an employee has a substantial interest in retaining her job and a significant risk of deprivation without any procedures at all. It concluded that the teachers were entitled to a recall procedure that would allow them a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications for open positions for a reasonable period of time. With respect to the content of the injunction, however, the Court had two comments. First, it removed the requirement that the Board promulgate rules in conjunction with the Union. Nothing in the statute requires consultation with the Union -- although nothing prohibits it, either. Second, the Court emphasized that the district court's order requiring that the discharges be rescinded did not result in the recall of any teachers. The teachers are still laid-off.

Judge Manion dissented in part and concurred in part, although his concurrence was limited to the majority’s modification of the injunction. First, Judge Manion disagreed with the conclusion that the Illinois statute required the Board to enact recall procedures in the event of the layoff. He pointed out that the Board has established recall procedures in other circumstances, such as a school closing. Second, although teachers have a property interest in their employment, he noted that the Board terminated their employment and honored all process to which they were entitled. No case holds that an employee in that situation has some residual property rights. Third, Judge Manion disagreed with the majority's identification of recall rights as property rights. He pointed out the circularity of the logic. The majority concluded that the recall procedures were the property rights. In order to protect those rights, the Court ordered the Board to develop the procedures. Simply put, even if the statute and other circumstances created a property interest, the property interest cannot be the procedures themselves.

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

JOHNSON v. MANITOWOC COUNTY (March 10, 2011)

Steven Avery was convicted of rape in Wisconsin state court in 1986. After serving 18 years in jail, he was released in 2003 after DNA evidence suggested that he did not commit the crime. He filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Manitowoc County authorities. Avery lived in a trailer and garage rented  from Roland Johnson. A few years after his release, a magazine photographer disappeared after meeting with Avery on Johnson's property. An investigation ensued, with Avery a prime suspect. Several search warrants were executed at the trailer and garage. During the searches, the investigators broke up a portion of the concrete garage floor with a jackhammer, damaged the garage door, and damaged the trailer. They also seized a number of personal items. Johnson brought suit against County officials under § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments. Judge Randa (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Johnson appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Evans affirmed. The Court first considered Johnson's argument that the use of the jackhammers violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, and measures it under the totality of the circumstances. The Court rejected Johnson' argument that the availability of a less invasive tool made the use of the jackhammers unreasonable. The Fourth Amendment does not require the least destructive approach to the execution of a search warrant. The Court concluded that the use of the jackhammers was reasonable under the circumstances. The Court turned to Johnson's claim that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause entitles him to compensation. But the Takings Clause does not apply when the "taking" results from a government power other than the power of eminent domain. Here, any property seized or destroyed by government authorities was done so under its police power. The Court did note that Johnson may have some state remedies, both for compensation for damages and the return of his property – but he does not have a federal constitutional claim.

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

RAY v. CITY OF CHICAGO (January 5, 2011)

A Chicago Police officer pulled over Nona Ray for driving an night without headlights. He arrested her when he found cocaine in her car. She was charged with possession of a controlled substance and was detained for several hours. The officer also impounded her vehicle. The drug charges against her were eventually dropped. She contested the seizure of her automobile but a hearing officer found in favor of the City. Ray brought suit against the City and the officer, claiming a deprivation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She also sought review of the hearing officer's finding and challenged the constitutionality of the seizure ordinance. Judge Zagel (N.D. Ill) dismissed the complaint. Ray appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy, Rovner, and Evans affirmed. First, the Court rejected Ray's claim that the officer lacked probable cause to believe that she possessed drugs. The officer had probable cause to believe she committed a traffic offense -- that is all he needed for the arrest. Second, the Court rejected Ray's claim that the length of her detention violated the Constitution. The Court noted that it has held that detentions of up to 14 hours were reasonable absent an improper purpose, which is not alleged here. Third, the Court rejected her malicious prosecution-type claim that the officer planted the drugs. Because Illinois recognizes a malicious prosecution tort, she cannot bring a constitutional claim. Fourth, to the extent she alleged a Brady claim and did not waive it, the Court rejected it. A Brady claim is not viable in a situation where a person is never prosecuted. Finally, the Court rejected her claim regarding the impoundment of her automobile. Not only did she fail to adequately state any reason to reverse the district court, the Court's independent review of the district court's rationale convinced it that it was correct.

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

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN v. PHOENIX INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE (December 28, 2010)

The Court withdrew this opinion on February 10, 2011 and granted Phoenix’ Petition for Rehearing limited to the sovereign immunity issue. Supplemental briefing and oral argument will focus on:
       Whether the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff‐appellee Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (Wisconsin) did not waive any sovereign immunity it may have had
to the counterclaims asserted by defendant‐appellant Phoenix International Software (Phoenix),
or otherwise consent to their adjudication in this case?
       Whether the counterclaims brought by Phoenix against Wisconsin are compulsory or
permissive counterclaims under FED. R. CIV. P. 13? 

Phoenix International Software and the University of Wisconsin each registered the mark CONDOR with the Patent and Trademark Office. Phoenix has used the mark since 1978 and registered it in 1997. Wisconsin registered its mark in 2001. Each mark refers to computer software, although the Phoenix system is designed principally for mainframe systems and the Wisconsin system is designed principally for individual computers. Phoenix petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel Wisconsin's mark on the ground that it creates confusion. The Board granted the petition and canceled the mark. Wisconsin challenged the Board's decision by filing an action in federal district court. Phoenix counterclaimed for trademark infringement and false designation of origin. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) reversed the Board’s determination on Wisconsin's motion for summary judgment and also dismissed Phoenix's counterclaims on sovereign immunity grounds. Phoenix appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Flaum, Wood (dissenting in part), and Tinder reversed and remanded for trial on the likelihood of confusion issue but affirmed on the sovereign immunity issue. The Court first addressed the likelihood of confusion issue and specifically the standard of review. Wisconsin had two choices to challenge the Board's decision: a direct appeal to the Federal Circuit limited to the record below and decided on a substantial evidence standard, or a new action in the district court allowing it to supplement the record below. Since Wisconsin chose the latter course, the Court's standard of review is layered. The Board's findings are owed typical administrative appeal deference while the new evidence is treated like a typical summary judgment record and viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. That required the Court to distinguish the Board's findings from new evidence below. The Court concluded that the district court erred in reversing the Board. The principal issue in the case is the likelihood of confusion. The Board considered the actual nature and use of the software while the district court focused its analysis on the description of the products in their registration materials. But whether the public may be confused (i.e., attribute the products to a single source) is the real focus of the multiple factor likelihood of confusion test. The district court was wrong when it focused principally on the products' similarities and matters of use (and doubly wrong when it focused exclusively on the written descriptions). On the other hand, the Board was right when it focused on the facts that the marks were identical, their functions were similar, and sophisticated purchasers were likely to believe that their sources were related. The Court reinstated the Board's findings. It considered Wisconsin's new evidence but found it not sufficient to overcome those findings and compel summary judgment in Wisconsin's favor. It therefore remanded for a trial on likelihood of confusion. The Court next considered Phoenix's counterclaims, which the district court dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. There are two exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity. The first is when Congress regulates state behavior pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The second is when a state waives its immunity and consents to suit. The Court noted that the Supreme Court has already found unconstitutional the Patent Remedy Act's creation of state liability for patent infringement in Florida Prepaid. Given the similarities between the two statutes, the Court found the decision controlling. With respect to waiver, the Court first rejected the argument that Wisconsin's participation in the regulated trademark process amounted to waver, again relying on Florida Prepaid. Lastly, the Court addressed and rejected the argument that Wisconsin voluntarily waived its sovereign immunity when it chose to challenge the Court's decision by filing a suit in the district court. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's Lapides decision, in which Georgia was not allowed to invoke sovereign immunity after it removed a case from state court. Here, Wisconsin's filing simply reflected its choice of a forum for judicial review. It did not alter the nature of the proceedings in any way.

Judge Wood agreed with the majority on the likelihood of confusion with issue and also with respect to whether Wisconsin's participation in a federal regulatory program constituted a waiver of sovereign immunity. She dissented, however, on the issue of whether Wisconsin's district court challenge to the Board’s decision constituted a waiver. The issue is not, she said, whether the state is a defendant, a plaintiff, an intervenor, or an appellant. It is, instead, the voluntariness of the decision and its consequences. Here, Wisconsin chose to file a case. Lapides controls -- Wisconsin has waived sovereign immunity. Wisconsin was not even required to appeal. It could have accepted that the Board's decision. Similarly, it could have appealed to the Federal Circuit, where Phoenix would not have been able to file a counter court. Instead, Wisconsin chose to gain a litigation advantage by filing in the district court. Just like in the Lapides case, Wisconsin was using its sovereign immunity to gain a litigation advantage. Finally, Judge Wood wrote at length suggesting that it may be time to reconsider a "commercial act" exception to the scope of sovereign immunity.

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

KAHN v. BLAND (December 23, 2010)

The “Section 8” federal housing subsidy program provides rental assistance to low-income families. Although funded federally, the program is administered by local public housing agencies. Both the beneficiary families and the participating landlords must meet certain qualifications and are governed by a host of regulations. In Champaign County, Illinois, the program is run by the Housing Authority of Champaign County (HACC). In 2003, Latif Kahn, a qualified landlord with a contract with HACC, rented a subsidized apartment to Andrew Washington. At Washington' request, and allegedly with the approval of HACC, Kahn also rented some space in the building's basement to Washington outside the program. After Kahn evicted Washington in for nonpayment of rent, Washington brought the existence of this "side lease" to the HACC's executive director. The director advised Kahn that the lease was a violation of program regulations and that he was terminating Kahn's contracts and barring him from the program. Kahn was never given an opportunity to explain or appeal. The HACC sent a letter to each of Kahn's four tenants and advised them that they would have to move. In fact, however, Kahn’s contract with respect to only one of the tenants was terminated pursuant to the letter. Another contract was terminated when the contracted unit failed to pass an inspection. The other two tenants actually remained. One prospective tenant was denied an opportunity to rent an apartment from Kahn and was told by HACC that Kahn was an "undesired person." Kahn brought suit, alleging procedural and substantive due process claims against the director and a due process claim against HACC. Chief Judge McCuskey (C.D. Ill) granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff's case. Kahn appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Tinder affirmed. Both the substantive and procedural due process claims require the identification of a property or liberty interest. The Court concluded that Kahn had not established a property interest from a) his termination from the program, b) the termination of the contracts, or c) disputes regarding the remaining contracts. First, notwithstanding his allegations, the record was clear that he was never terminated from the program. The director made threatening statements but had no authority to bar Kahn from the program and, in fact, Kahn continued to participate in the program. Second, although the HACC did refuse to enter into new contracts with Kahn, nothing in the statute or regulations entitles him to enter into new contracts. Finally, Kahn's rights with respect to his existing contracts do not raise constitutional issues. They simply give rise to possible state breach of contract claims. With respect to a liberty interest, the Court concluded that Kahn forfeited the claim -- but also concluded that the claim would not succeed. The liberty interest recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to pursue an occupation, but not a specific job. Here, although the defendants' conduct may have affected Kahn 's ability to lease to certain individuals, it did not preclude him from his occupation.

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

NORMAN-NUNNERY v. MADISON AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE (November 8, 2010)

Elvira Jimenez brought a race discrimination lawsuit in 2000 against Madison Area Technical College and three of its employees (Carol Bassett, Jackie Thomas, and William Stryker). Her lawyer was Willie Nunnery. The suit was dismissed as frivolous -- Nunnery was sanctioned and lost his law license for a period of time because of his involvement in the case. On two separate occasions in the following few years, Judy Norman-Nunnery applied for positions at the College. Norman-Nunnery is an African-American woman and is married to Willie Nunnery. In 2002, she made it through an initial screening but was not interviewed. In 2005, she was encouraged to apply for a different position by the College's minority recruiter and Eugene Fujimoto, its Diversity Coordinator. Carol Bassett screened the 77 applicants for minimum qualifications. Norman-Nunnery and 45 others advanced. At that point, a five-person selection committee chaired by Jackie Thomas developed a weighted scoring system with five criteria. Each committee member separately scored the remaining 46 candidates. The College selected the top 10 to interview. Norman-Nunnery was not in the top 10. In fact, only one minority candidate made the list. Under the College’s diversity policy, it added the next two highest-scoring minority candidates to the interview list. Norman-Nunnery was not one of those two, either. Fujimoto met with Basset, Thomas, and William Stryker to discuss why Norman-Nunnery did not make the cut. They told him that she did not score well on two of the five criteria. Although he advised Bassett, Thomas, and Stryker that her resume may not have accurately reflected her experience, they chose not to add her to the interview list. A white woman was hired for the job. Norman-Nunnery filed suit against the College as well as Bassett, Stryker, and Thomas. She alleged violations of Title VII, the 1st and 14th amendment, and § 1981 for discriminating against her on account of her race and her association with her husband. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that no rational jury could conclude that race or marital status was the motivation for the defendants' actions. Norman-Nunnery appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Rovner affirmed. The Court first addressed Norman-Nunnery's argument that she was entitled to a spoliation inference due to the unexplained loss of a number of documents relevant to her claim. It concluded that she was not. To be entitled to an inference that the missing documents would support her claim, she must show that the documents were intentionally destroyed in bad faith in order to hide adverse information. Here, the files were lost before any claim was made and there is no evidence that they were intentionally destroyed in order to cover up harmful evidence. The Court cited the fact that the office in which they were located had moved twice, that the filing system was haphazard, and that in fact most of the documents relevant to the claim were not lost. Without evidence of a bad-faith motive, Norman-Nunnery is not entitled to a favorable inference. On the merits, Norman-Nunnery proceeded under both the direct and indirect approaches. Her only claimed direct evidence, however, once the inference was rejected, is an unscientific study that concluded that the College's selection process favored internal candidates. Since most internal candidates were not minorities, the process therefore favored non-minorities. The Court stated that such a study cannot, by itself, meet the standard for a discrimination claim and rejected the claim under the direct method. In reviewing a case like this under the indirect method, the analysis of the prima facie case and the defendants' non-discriminatory reason response frequently overlap. Norman-Nunnery must show that she was qualified and that defendants rejected her in favor of someone of like qualifications. The defendants, on the other hand, assert as their non-discriminatory reason that Norman-Nunnery was not as qualified as those interviewed and as the individual who was hired. The undisputed facts in this case established that the defendants applied the same criteria to all applicants and made their decision based on the applicants' qualifications. Summary judgment on her race discrimination claim was appropriate. For much the same reason, the Court rejected her claim that she was discriminated against because of her husband. There was some evidence that at least some of the defendants knew who her husband was and continued to have negative feelings about him. There was no evidence, however, that the defendants made their hiring decisions because of him.

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

SHERMAN v. KOCH (October 15, 2010)

In 1969, the Illinois legislature authorized, but did not require, public school teachers to "observe a brief period of silence" to be used as "an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection." The legislature added a section to the act in 2002 declaring a student's right to exercise religion freely and to be free from State pressure regarding the exercise or non-exercise of religion. In 2007, the legislature made the brief period of silence mandatory. Dawn Sherman, a public high school student, brought suit through her father under § 1983. She brought a facial challenge under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) granted a preliminary injunction, certified a plaintiff class of state public school students, certified a defendant class of state public school districts, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff class, and permanently enjoined the statute’s implementation. He concluded that the statute violated the First Amendment in that it failed the first two prongs of the Lemon test (it had no secular purpose and its primary effect was to advance religion). He also concluded that the statute was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion, and Williams (dissenting) reversed. The Court briefly addressed and rejected the argument that Sherman lacked standing because she suffered no damage (since she was only subjected to silence). Sherman alleged that the practice violates the First Amendment. Her status as a student is enough for standing. On the merits, the Court applied the Lemon test. Under Lemon, a statute: a) must have a secular legislative purpose, b) must not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and c) must "not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court first concluded that the statute had a secular legislative purpose under the first Lemon prong. It relied on the plain meaning of the statute, its context, its legislative history, and the events leading to its passage. It concluded that each of those factors supported the articulated legislative purpose of providing a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day in order to calm the students. The record was very different from the record in Wallace, in which the Supreme Court held that Alabama's similar statute lacked any secular purpose. In fact, the Court found support for its view in the Wallace concurring opinions of Justices O'Connor and Powell. With respect to the second Lemon prong, the Court concluded that the statute's primary effect was not to advance or inhibit religion. The Court relied principally on the statute's language. The statute expressly provided that the brief period of silence could not be conducted as a religious exercise -- and thus did not advance religion. It also expressly provided that the moment of silence was an opportunity for prayer or silent reflection -- and thus did not inhibit religion. Since no one raised the third Lemon prong, the Court concluded that the statute met the test and did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court briefly considered the facial Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenge. The Due Process Clause does not require perfection and precision, particularly where criminal penalties are not at issue and particularly in a school setting. Although the statute does not provide any details regarding the moment of silence’s logistics, testimony in the record indicates that school districts are quite capable of providing that detail. The facial challenge fails.

Judge Williams dissented from the panel's opinion with respect to the First Amendment challenge. Her view can be gleaned from one sentence in her opinion: ([L]et’s call a spade a state -- statutes like these are about prayer in schools." Notwithstanding the deference that should be shown to the legislature's stated purpose and the fact that there are statements of secular purpose in the record, Judge Williams believed they were pretextual. She relied principally on two things: the specific reference to prayer and the inclusion of prayer as one of (and the first of) two available alternatives for the moment of silence. She believed that the statute endorsed religion and thereby violated the Establishment clause.

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

WOLFE v. SCHAEFER (August 31, 2010)

Mervin Wolfe ran an unsuccessful campaign for Cumberland County State's Attorney in 2008 against Barry Schaefer, the incumbent. Wolfe brought suit against Schaefer and others (with whom he had a long history) pursuant to § 1983. He alleges that the defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they published the fact that he was under investigation by certain state agencies as part of their attempt to defeat his campaign. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint. Wolfe appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court noted that the state law required the investigations be kept confidential. But Wolfe did not allege a violation of state law -- he alleged that the state law granted him a constitutional right. The Court recognized that a state law can create a liberty or property interest protected by the due process clause. There is also a common law breach of privacy tort, including one that protects an unreasonable interference with one's private life. The issue for the Court was whether any of this rose to the level of a protected property or liberty interest. The Supreme Court has not held that disclosure of private information violates the due process clause. In Whalen, it suggested that the disclosure of certain private information might do so -- but in Paul v. Davis held that one's reputation is not constitutionally protected. The courts of appeals have used Whalen to recognize certain constitutionally protected privacy rights. Although the Court recognized that certain situations might give rise to a constitutional right to privacy, it concluded that Wolfe's case was at the other end of the continuum. Information regarding the investigations of a candidate for public office is a matter of significant public interest. Wolfe's complaint was properly dismissed.

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

FORREST v. PRINE  (August 31, 2010)

In responding to a 911 call, the Rock Island County Sheriff's police came upon Roger Forrest. Forrest was uncooperative and belligerent. After he struck an officer, the police employed a taser several times to subdue him. He was arrested and charged with a felony. Pursuant to County procedure, he was subject to a strip search. Forrest refused to cooperate, instead pacing back and forth in a small room, shouting obscenities and insulting the officers present. One of those officers, Michael Prine, warned him on several occasions that he would use a taser again if Forrest did not comply with the search. Eventually, he did use the taser. The testimony differs on this point. Prine and other officers testified that he aimed the taser at Forrest's back -- Forrest testified that Prine aimed at his face. In any event, one of the darts did hit his face. He fell and suffered a head injury. Forrest brought an action pursuant to § 1983 against Officer Prine. He complained of the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Magistrate Judge Gorman (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Prine. Forrest appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Ripple, and Kanne affirmed. The Court first commented on the basis for Forrest's claim. The Fourth Amendment grants certain rights to be free from excessive force but applies only in the search and seizure context. The Court admitted that it had not precisely defined the temporal contours of Fourth Amendment protection but concluded that allegations arising in the pretrial detention process, such as Forrest's, are clearly outside its temporal bounds. On the other end of the spectrum, the Eighth Amendment protects sentenced prisoners from claims of unnecessary or excessive force or punishment. Forrest's claims arise in the pretrial detainee context and are governed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In analyzing Forrest's claim, the Court applied an Eighth Amendment approach. The due process clause provides at least as much (and maybe more -- but Forrest did not argue so) protection as the Eighth Amendment. The test under the Eighth Amendment is whether the force is "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." The relevant factors include the need for and amount of force, the existence of a threat, any effort to use less force, and the extent of any injury. Applying that test here, the Court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find Prine's use of force impermissible. Forrest was a large man in a small space, pacing and shouting, threatening and swearing, clenching his fists and refusing to follow orders. Prine warned him several times that he would use the taser if Forrest did not follow instructions. Finally, the Court refused Forrest's invitation to infer some malicious intent from the mere fact that one dart struck him in the face. There is simply no evidence to support such an inference.

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

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