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

MILESTONE v. CITY OF MONROE (November 21, 2011)

The city of Monroe, Wisconsin (the "Swiss Cheese Capital of the U.S.A.") operates a Senior Center for its older residents. Nine volunteers sit on the Monroe Senior Citizens Board, which promulgated a Code of Conduct for the center. Edith Milestone used the center frequently, but not without incident. She was a frequent disruptive influence at the center and was warned about her failure to behave reasonably. In late 2008, she got into a heated discussion with the center's Director and threatened to sue her. The next day, the Center sent Milestone a letter advising her that she was no longer welcome. The letter listed the various alleged violations of the Center's Code. At Milestones request, the Senior Citizens Board held an evidentiary hearing and affirmed the ban. The Board also advised Milestone that she could appeal the finding to the Monroe Common Council. Instead of appealing, Milestone brought a § 1983 suit against Monroe, alleging violations of her due process and free speech rights. Magistrate Judge Crocker (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that neither the Director nor the Board were final policymakers for Monell purposes. Milestone appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court agreed with the magistrate, at least as far as he went. In order to establish liability against the city, there must be (in this case) a decision by a municipal agent with final policymaking authority. It is clear that neither the Director nor the Board had that authority. The Director's decisions are all subject to review by the Board. Under state and local law, the Board did not have final policymaking authority. The Monroe Common Council retained ultimate authority over the Board's activity in this area. Although the city cannot be liable for the actions of the Director or the Board under Monell, Milestone also brought a claim based on the Code of Conduct itself. The code is municipal policy and can subject the city to liability if it, as Milestone alleged, violates the First Amendment. Because the Code is content neutral, it's restrictions are acceptable if they are: a) narrowly tailored, b) to achieve a significant governmental interest, and c) allow for ample alternative communication channels. The Court concluded that the Code met each of these requirements. First, the rules only require visitors to treat each other with respect and to refrain from abusive language. Second, the Center's goal was to create a pleasant and upbeat environment for its older citizens. Third, the Code does not restrict a visitor's right to express herself, as long as she does so respectfully. The Code is a content-neutral reasonable time, place, and manner restriction and does not violate the First Amendment. Finally, the Court rejected Milestone's void for vagueness claim. Any person of reasonable intelligence would understand what conduct is prohibited.

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

SALLENGER v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD (December 17, 2010)

In early 2002, Andrew Sallenger was living with his mother, his sister, and his sister's four children at his mother's house in Springfield, Illinois. Sallenger suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. In the middle of the night on April 30, Sallenger experienced a psychotic episode. He was screaming, breaking things, and running around the house naked. His sister called 911. She warned the police of his condition and his strength (6 feet tall, 262 pounds). Three officers responded and eventually, although not without great difficulty, were able to subdue him. They used a hobble, a device that limits movement by strapping one's lower legs to one's hands. A few minutes after the officers subdued Sallenger with a hobble, he stopped breathing. The officers removed the hobble and administered CPR, without success. Sallenger’s Estate brought several claims against the officers and the City, including a § 1983 claim alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for failing to adequately respond to Sallenger’s medical needs and a Monell claim against the City for failure to train in the use of the hobble. They also brought excessive force claims against the three officers. Those claims were tried to a jury and resolved in the officers' favor. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment against the Estate on the medical needs and Monell claims. The Estate appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court applied an objective reasonableness standard to the medical needs claim and considered four criteria: the need for medical attention, the severity of the need, the nature of the required treatment, and any police interests. The Estate's case rests on the timing of two police calls and the inferences that can be drawn from them. One call came in at 2:15 a.m. In that call, one of the officers reported that Sallenger was unconscious. The second call, which came in at 2:22 a.m., was from a police lieutenant reporting that he was at the scene. Combined with the fact that the lieutenant was present when efforts to resuscitate began, the Estate argues that it is entitled to an inference that the officers waited seven minutes after knowing Sallenger was unconscious before they tried to resuscitate him. The Court rejected this inference. All inferences must be drawn in the Estate’s favor on summary judgment, but those inferences must be reasonable. Here, the officers and Sallenger's sister all testified that resuscitation efforts began as soon as they knew that he was unconscious. The lieutenant also testified that his call did not necessarily take place immediately upon his arrival. In light of that testimony, and without more support, the inference requested by the Estate is unreasonable. The Court also agreed with the district court's summary judgment ruling on the Monell claim. A municipality cannot be liable unless there is an underlying constitutional violation by an employee. Here, a jury found that none of the officers was liable for a constitutional violation on the excessive force claim and the Court affirmed summary judgment for the officers on the medical needs claim. Therefore, there can be no municipal liability. 

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

PALKA v. SHELTON (October 7, 2010)

Peter Palka's hopes of becoming a Chicago police officer were dashed when he was kicked out of the Police Academy. His father Tadeusz, a 28-year veteran of the Cook County Sheriff's Department, thought the termination was discriminatory and based on the fact that Peter was Polish. The elder Palka tried to convince Matthew Tobias, the official in charge of the Academy, to reinstate his son. Tobias assured Palka that Peter was terminated for cause and refused to reverse the decision. A few months later, the receptionist at his children’s school advised Tobias that an unidentified man with a Polish accent called and asked questions about the children. Tobias suspected Palka and began an investigation. Phone records revealed that someone in the Cook County Building at 69 W. Washington in Chicago had placed a call to the school on the afternoon in question. Tobias was now convinced -- he reported the call to the local police, he opened an incident report and checked Palka for outstanding warrants, he asked senior officers to speak with Palka, and he filed a formal complaint with the Sheriff's Department's Office of Internal Affairs. Palka was suspended with pay. Shortly before a formal disciplinary hearing that would decide his fate, the Department offered Palka full retirement benefits (including badge and firearm credentials) if he resigned. He did resign, but never received his credentials. Palka filed suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging procedural and substantive due process violations, occupational liberty deprivations, and Monell claims. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Palka appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed. The Court rejected each of Palka’s contentions in turn. First, the procedural due process claim relating to his suspension fails because a suspension with pay does not trigger due process protection unless there is a claim of indirect economic consequences. Palka makes no such allegation. Second, the procedural due process claim relating to his resignation also fails. Palka was simply given a choice to avail himself of the procedural protections offered by the Merit Board (and risk losing everything) or to resign with retirement benefits. He was not deprived of due process protections -- he traded them away. Third, the substantive due process claim fails. Public employment termination does not give rise to a substantive due process claim unless it is accompanied by an allegation of other constitutional violations or inadequate state remedies, neither of which is present here. To the extent that Palka relied on police misconduct to support the substantive due process claim, the Court stated that it did not meet the high “shocks the conscience” threshold. Fourth, the occupational liberty claim fails. Palka failed to allege public disclosure an essential element of the claim. The County's failure to grant him badge and firearm credentials, on which Palka bases this claim, was not publicly disclosed nor does Palka allege that any potential future employer learned of it. Finally, because there is no constitutional violation, there can be no Monell liability.

• 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

GAYTON v. MCCOY (January 28, 2010)

India Taylor had a life-threatening heart condition. She took six different medications to treat the condition. The six drugs were not the only drugs Taylor took – she was also a heroin user. Taylor was arrested on four different occasions in the summer of 2003. As a result, personnel at the Peoria County Jail became very familiar with her condition and her medications. Both her medical history and her prescriptions became part of her file. She was arrested again in October. Because she complained of chest pain, she was taken for a medical examination. Nurse Radcliffe knew her history and medications and asked her brother to bring her medications to the jail. She also made a notation that Taylor should see the doctor the next day if her medications did not arrive. The next day, Taylor complained of nausea on multiple occasions. By mid-afternoon, she was vomiting violently. The guards called the nurse, and even collected her vomit in a bag. Nurse Hibbert suspected that Taylor was faking her symptoms in order to get drugs and refused to see her. Although her name was on the list to see the doctor the next day, she died during the night. Lester Gayton, her brother and administrator of her estate, brought a wrongful death action pursuant to §1983. He named the sheriff, the jail superintendent, the doctor, three nurses, and the outsourced health care provider at the jail. The district court excluded the testimony of the plaintiff's medical expert and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Gayton appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Lawrence affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court started with the district court’s exclusion of the medical expert, Dr. Weinstein. First, the Court concluded that the lower court erred in finding Weinstein unqualified to opine on the cause of death. In fact, Weinstein did not testify as to cause of death -- he simply adopted the other experts' conclusion that Taylor died of nonspecific heart failure. Next, the Court stated that the fact that Weinstein was not a cardiologist did not make him unqualified. Finally, with respect to the reliability of his specific conclusions, the Court considered each conclusion individually: a) the lower court properly barred the conclusion that Taylor might have lived had she been given her medication since he gave no basis for his opinion and claims no specific expertise regarding the medication, b) the court improperly barred his testimony that the combination of her vomiting and certain medications might have contributed to her heart failure since that opinion requires no specialized expertise, and c) although the court did not address it, Weinstein is an expert in prison healthcare and is qualified to give his opinion that prison medical personnel fell short of accepted standards of medical care.

The Court next addressed summary judgment. A cause of action for failure to provide adequate medical care requires a showing of a serious medical condition, deliberate indifference, and causation. The deliberate indifference element itself requires knowledge of the health risk and a disregarding of that risk. Given Taylor's serious heart condition, her complaints of chest pain and nausea, and her excessive vomiting, the Court had little difficulty in finding enough evidence of a serious medical condition to overcome summary judgment. On the issue of deliberate indifference, the Court analyzed each defendant separately: a) summary judgment was proper for the sheriff, the doctor, and the superintendent since they had no contact with Taylor and did not know of her request for medical attention, b) summary judgment was proper for the outsourced medical care organization since the plaintiff conceded that the medical policies were sufficient, thus precluding Monell liability, c) summary judgment was proper for two of the three nurses in that one acted reasonably and the other, although negligent, was not deliberately indifferent, and d) summary judgment in Nurse Hibbert’s favor was improper since a jury could find that her refusal to see Taylor despite strong indications that she was in need of medical treatment amounted to deliberate indifference. Finally, the Court also found sufficient evidence in the record on which a jury could find proximate causation between Nurse Hibbert’s conduct and a delay in treatment that exacerbated Taylor’s suffering.

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

HOUSKINS v. SHEAHAN  (November 25, 2008)

Virgean Houskins was an employee of the Cook County Department of Corrections. One September morning in 2001, she found herself sitting in her car in the parking lot of her place of employment, waiting for a parking space to open up. Correctional Officer Keith entered the lot and took what Houskins believed was her space. Houskins uttered some profanities about Keith (which he heard) and proceeded to park in another space. A verbal confrontation between the two ended with Keith striking Houskins in the face. Correctional Officer Calderone arrived a few moments later but did nothing. Houskins reported to work, filed an incident report, and also reported the incident to her supervisor, Tolbert. Tolbert took Houskins and Bowers to the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) to make out a complaint. Houskins also filed a police report. The IAD dismissed the charges against Keith and Calderone as not conclusive but upheld an obscene language charge against Houskins. Upon further department review, the finding against Houskins was upheld but the dismissal of the complaint against Keith and Calderone was reversed. Houskins filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff and Cook County, alleging a) that the Sheriff retaliated against her for filing the complaints and charges against Keith, b) that a “code of silence” policy existed for correctional officers and those who violated it were subject to retaliation, and c) that the Sheriff employed a disciplinary system in which certain officers with clout were exempted from discipline. Houskins also brought pendant state court claims of assault and battery against Keith. At trial, the jury returned a verdict against the Sheriff and Keith. It awarded $240,000 against the Sheriff and $10,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages against Keith. The Sheriff and Keith appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion and Williams affirmed the judgment and damages award with respect to Keith and reversed and remanded with respect to the Sheriff. The Court first addressed two preliminary procedural issues. Houskins argued that the Sheriff could not appeal a denial of summary judgment after a jury verdict and also that the Sheriff waived the argument by not raising it in the final pre-trial order. The Court noted that while denials of summary judgments motions based on the sufficiency of the evidence are generally not reviewable, the Sheriff’s motion raised a question of law – whether Houskins’ speech was constitutionally protected – and was therefore appealable. The Court also held that the failure to raise it in the final pre-trial order did not constitute a waiver. On the merits of the speech issue, the Court looked to the Supreme Court’s Garcetti decision. Garcetti requires a court first to decide whether a plaintiff is speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public interest. Houskins complained of retaliation for two different instances of speech – her internal complaint and her police report. The Court concluded that her internal complaint was not protected speech. She was required to report misconduct as part of her official job responsibilities. With respect to the police report, the Court concluded that it was not part of her job responsibilities but that she was speaking about a matter of purely personal interest. Her purpose in filing the police report was not to air a grievance about conditions at the jail or her safety as an employee. The Court found that Houskins’ speech was not constitutionally protected and that the lower court therefore erred in denying the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court added that Houskins’ Monell claims that the Sheriff had a policy of retaliation and selective discipline had to fail as well. A Monell claim cannot stand where the alleged official policy did not result in a constitutional violation.

With respect to the jury’s verdict for Houskins on her claims of assault and battery against Keith, the Court rejected each of Keith’s arguments on appeal. It held that a) the district court properly asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims since they pertained to the same set of circumstances alleged in the federal claim, b) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a separate trial for Keith, c) the judge’s comments to Keith’s counsel did not indicate bias, and d) the award of punitive damages was not excessive. The Court affirmed the judgment against Keith.

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