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

COVELL v. MENKIS (February 8, 2010)

The Illinois Deaf and Hard of Hearing Commission (the "Commission") was created several years ago to provide services for and advocate on behalf of the hard of hearing. Gerald Covell served as its Director from 1998 until 2003. In July of that year, the Commissioners terminated him. Covell filed suit under § 1983, alleging that defendants violated both his property and liberty interests. Specifically, he alleged that he was let go without any pre-or post-termination process in violation of a property interest. He also alleges that defendants circulated false information about him, without providing him an opportunity to clear his name, in violation of his liberty interest. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that Covell had no property interest in this position and that he failed to demonstrate that any particular defendant circulated negative information. Covell appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the existence of a property interest. Although a property interest can arise from state law, a person must identify a specific statute, rule, or contract that limits the ability of the state to terminate him. The rules governing Covell's position states that he "shall serve at the pleasure of the Commission." The Court rejected Covell's position that an inconsistent right was somehow incorporated into the regulation by its reference to the Personnel Code. Since he had no property interest, he had no right to due process. With respect to his liberty interest claim, the Court stated that the plaintiff must show that he was stigmatized by publicly disclosed information and that he suffered a tangible loss. Specifically, the plaintiff must show that a named defendant made the public disclosure. Here, Covell contends only that the disclosure was made by someone in the government. Without evidence that the disclosure was made by a named defendant, Covell's claim fails.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

BIVENS v. TRENT (January 6, 2010)
 

In his position as an officer in the Illinois State Police, Jimmy Bivens was responsible for the operations of an indoor firing range. He performed his job well. He greatly improved the conditions at the range and was commended for his work. After a few months of working at the range, however, Bivens began to feel quite ill. He was concerned that his symptoms were related to lead exposure at the range. Blood tests revealed highly elevated levels of lead. Bivens filed a union grievance, alleging unsafe working conditions. Within days, the range was tested and closed for remediation. Bivens' blood lead levels returned to normal within a few weeks and he returned to work. He only worked for one week, however, claiming that he continued to experience health problems. The State Police arranged for independent examinations by a neurologist and psychiatrist. Both found Bivens' health to be normal and approved his return to work. The State Police terminated Bivens' disability benefits. Bivens brought suit pursuant to §1983, alleging that his superiors violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing the union grievance. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that his speech was not protected because it was part of his official duties. Bivens appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Evans affirmed. One of the several elements of Bivens' §1983 claim is that he engaged in speech protected by the Constitution. The Court agreed with the district court that Bivens had an obligation, as part of his job, to report his concerns about lead contamination. It also agreed that any such reports to his superiors would not be protected under the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision. Here, however, the speech was not through Bivens' chain of command but as a union grievance. The Court was unwilling to conclude, because of the availability of an alternative holding, that the union grievance could not be protected speech. To be protected, the speech must also address a matter of public concern. The Court looked to the content, the context and the form to determine whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern. The court concluded that the context -- Bivens' own illness -- and the form -- an internal union grievance -- were more consistent with the vindication of a private, rather than a public, interest. Although the content referenced a subject of potential public interest, the Court concluded that Bivens was not attempting, by his speech, to bring this safety issue into the open. Being purely private, the speech was not protected and retaliation claim fails. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

KNIGHT v. WISEMAN (December 22, 2009)

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION v. CLARKE (December 4, 2009)

The Milwaukee County Sheriff, David Clarke, invited a religious group, the Fellowship of the Christian Centurions, to attend and speak at a department leadership conference. All deputies above the rank of sergeant were required to attend. At the conference, Clarke announced some upcoming promotions, distributed written material with quotations from the Bible, and described "people of faith" as one of the qualities he was looking for in a leader. One of the Centurions then spoke and distributed additional material. After the conference, representatives of the Centurions also made presentations and distributed flyers at a number of mandatory roll calls. Two deputies, and their union, brought suit under § 1983. They alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the Establishment Clause claim. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Cudahy and Williams affirmed. Under the Establishment Clause, government action may not: a) have a non-secular purpose, b) have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or c) foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Although the first prong requires an analysis of the government's actual purpose, the second does not. A violation can be established if a reasonable person would conclude that the government action amounted to an endorsement of religion. Here, very few outside organizations have the kind of access given to the Centurions -- and those that were were organizations that partnered with the department in some fashion. The Court concluded that a reasonable observer would interpret the Sheriff's actions as an endorsement, although it was careful to limit its conclusion to the facts presented. In its analysis, the Court also rejected the Sheriff's argument that the First Amendment compelled him to grant access to the Centurions. The Court reasoned that the Sheriff did not create a forum of any kind by having a department meeting or a roll call. The Centurions were not looking for a place to speak -- they were looking for a specific audience to speak to. The Sheriff was not required to give that access.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ILLINOIS DUNESLAND PRESERVATION SOCIETY v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (October 14, 2009)

Illinois Beach State Park is located in northeastern Illinois on the shores of Lake Michigan. Various buildings in the park have display racks containing pamphlets on various topics. The Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society is a nonprofit corporation that supports the park. The Society created a pamphlet warning of the risk of asbestos at the park's beaches. When the park refused to display the pamphlet, the Society brought suit under § 1983 against the state officials involved in operating the park. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials. The Society appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed. The Court first recited some of the "forum analysis" of Supreme Court decisions but then questioned the value of that analysis to the question. Every public site, stated the Court, can be regulated to some extent depending on the circumstances and as long as the regulation is not used to stifle speech. Here, the materials displayed in the park's racks are meant to promote the park and state tourist facilities generally. The dire warning contained in the Society's pamphlet is hardly consistent with that purpose. The Court concluded that the park was not required to display, and thus tacitly endorse, the pamphlet containing the warnings. The Court added that there were other means, such as personal distribution, available to the Society to convey its message. The park's position was not an unreasonable barrier to speech.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

HUNTER v. AMIN (October 1, 2009)

Stanley Bell was sent to the St. Clair County Jail as a pretrial detainee. At the time, he was taking several medications, including an antidepressant and a sleep aid. The prison psychiatrist, Dr. Amin, met with Bell about a week later. Bell refused to speak with Amin with a jail officer present. Amin refused to meet with Bell without a jail officer present, a practice that was also required by state regulations. Bell became agitated -- Amin told him his medication would be discontinued without the examination -- Bell became more agitated and belligerent. Amin discontinued all of Bell's medications and planned to meet with him the following week. Bell committed suicide two days later. Bell's sister, Elisha Hunter, brought a claim pursuant to § 1983 against Amin, the County, and others. She also bought medical malpractice claims. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all the defendants. Hunter appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple and Sykes (dissenting) and District Judge Lawrence affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court first considered the argument that the policy requiring the presence of a corrections officer was a violation of Dell's right to mental health treatment. In order for a municipality to be liable under these circumstances, its policy must violate constitutional rights. Here, the Court stated that the policy did not violate Bell's rights. Bell had a constitutional right to adequate mental health treatment but nothing in the County's policy affected that right. In fact, the Court noted that the fact that the communications would be privileged from disclosure supported their conclusion. With respect to the medical malpractice claim, however, the Court reversed. Although it is true that no physician duty arises if a patient refuses treatment, Bell did not refuse treatment -- he only refused to be examined. The Court found no evidence in the record supporting Amin's position that the examination was necessary in order for him to continue the prescription medications. The Court medical remanded the malpractice claim for further proceedings. Finally, given the affirmance on the only federal claim in the case, the Court instructed the district court to determine whether it should continue to exercise jurisdiction.

Judge Sykes dissented from the majority's reversal of the medical malpractice claim. Judge Sykes concluded that Bell's refusal to consent to the examination meant that Amin had no right to render any treatment. Amin testified that he needed the examination before any treatment. Judge Sykes noted the lack of support in the record for the majority's conclusion that the examination was required.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

SUAREZ v. TOWN OF OGDEN DUNES (September 11, 2009)

William Suarez hosted a high school graduation party on the beach behind his parents' home in Ogden Dunes, Indiana. Beer was served. Around 11:00 p.m., a local police officer happened by and noticed the activity. While warning one young man for his illegal parking, he was verbally abused by several others. Believing that the party was getting out of control, the officer left to get help. Meanwhile, Suarez ended the party, put out the bonfire and invited a small group of his friends inside to spend the night. Suarez' mother, concerned that the police may return, instructed the boys to remain upstairs. The officer returned with a bevy of squad cars. He saw that there were still several cars in the driveway, although no people were present. Suspicious that the underage drinking was continuing inside the house, the officer telephoned a local judge for a search warrant. He described the earlier scene of abuse and fairly raucous behavior. He added that there were bottles in the back yard, that a number of teenagers retreated into the house and that teenagers hiding behind couches were visible through a window of the house. He got his warrant -- they broke down the door -- they arrested Suarez and his mother. William was wrestled and pepper-sprayed during his arrest. Suarez and his mother brought this action under § 1983, alleging an unlawful search and an unlawful arrest. William also complained of excessive force. Most of the case was resolved with summary judgment in the defendants' favor. The excessive force claim against three of the officers was tried to a jury, resulting in a defense verdict. William and his mother appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Tinder affirmed. The illegal search claim, stated the Court, depends on the existence of probable cause. Because the plaintiffs challenged the statements made by the officer to the judge, as opposed to the decision of the judge, they must show that the officer made false statements knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth and that the statements were necessary for the determination of probable cause. The Court first considered the claim that he made false statements by implying that he actually saw the teenagers retreat into the house and by omitting the fact that almost an hour elapsed between the earlier raucous behavior and his return to the home. The Court concluded that these were not materially false statements. The officer's earlier observations combined with the fact that a number of cars were still at the house supported an inference that the party was still taking place. The Court also rejected the claim that the officer did not personally observe every fact reported to the judge. He was entitled to rely on the collective knowledge of the gathered officers. Probable cause therefore existed and the search was lawful. The existence of probable cause for the search disposes of William's unlawful arrest claim. As for his mother's, the officers had reason to believe that she was permitting minors to consume alcohol in her home, a violation of Indiana law. Her arrest, also, was lawful.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

NEW ALBANY DVD v. CITY OF NEW ALBANY (September 10, 2009)

New Albany DVD set out to operate an adult entertainment business in New Albany, Indiana. It purchased property, obtained licenses and renovated a building. Although the land was properly zoned, the City refused to conduct a final inspection, a requirement for occupancy. Instead, it imposed a moratorium on new adult businesses. During the moratorium, it changed the zoning rules to prohibit the operation of an adult business on the property selected by New Albany DVD. The new rules prohibit the operation of an adult business within 1000 feet of a church or any property zoned residential. The site is within 200 feet of both. New Albany DVD brought suit under § 1983, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the ordinance was likely unconstitutional and issued an injunction allowing New Albany DVD to open. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner remanded. The Court first disagreed with the lower court's rationale -- that the regulation was not narrowly tailored for its purpose -- for issuing the injunction. Although Alameda Books and other cases require narrow tailoring of regulations of adult businesses, the Court concluded that the dispersal regulation at issue had often been used and sustained after challenge. The Court went on, however, to agree with the court’s result under a different rationale. It noted that the studies relied on by the City focused on live-entertainment businesses. New Albany DVD offers take-home materials only. The City’s attempts to overcome this hurdle by offering anecdotal evidence of increased litter and theft was rejected as well. The Court agreed that the City might be able to use those justifications, but concluded that sufficient evidence did not exist in the record. Finally, the Court referred, as it did in its earlier Annex Books opinion (see post), to Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Alameda Books as a guide to the evidence required under the intermediate scrutiny standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

THOMAS v. CITY OF PEORIA (September 3, 2009)

A lawyer for the city of Peoria sought and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Joshua Thomas. Joshua’s crime -- nine unpaid parking tickets. Sometime later, Joseph Thomas was stopped for a traffic violation. Although the names and addresses of Joshua and Joseph did not match, the driver's license number on the arrest warrant for Joshua did match that of Joseph. Joseph was arrested. He was later released when it was determined that he was, indeed, not Joshua. Joseph brought an action under § 1983 against the City and the lawyer who obtained the warrant. He alleged a deprivation of his Fourth Amendment and due process rights. The court dismissed for failure to state a claim. He then denied class certification. Thomas appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Posner and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed "zone of interest" standing. The Court explained zone of interest standing as a requirement of federal common law that limits the class of persons entitled to sue. Remoteness of injury is one of those limitations. Here, for example, assuming state law does not authorize an arrest for unpaid parking tickets and that such an arrest would therefore violate the Constitution, Joshua Thomas is the one within the class of people the policy is designed to protect. Joseph’s interest is to remote to be recognized. Alternatively, the Court went on to conclude that Joseph would fare no better even if he was within the zone of interest. The Supreme Court held in Moore that a otherwise reasonable arrest (which this is) is not unconstitutional simply because it was for an offense that does not authorize arrest. The Court easily disposed of the due process argument. Finally, the Court added that the individual defendant would in any event have absolute immunity as a prosecutor performing a prosecutorial function.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

DARCHAK v. CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION (September 3, 2009)

Anna Darchak, a native of Poland, worked for several years in the Chicago public school system as a teacher of English as a Second Language. In 2005, she was hired as a full-time teacher at the Princeton Alternative Center on a one-year contract. It was not a good year. Almost immediately, Darchak complained that Hispanic students were being treated more favorably than Polish students. Darchak alleges that Princeton's principal made several disparaging remarks in reference to Darchak's heritage. Later in the year, the principal assigned Darchak to a classroom with a large number of Spanish speaking students. Darchak complained – and she received a negative evaluation. The principal chose not to renew Darchak's contract at the end of the year. Darchak filed suit, alleging retaliatory discharge, First Amendment retaliation under § 1983, and national origin discrimination under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Darchak appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Ripple and Wood affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court addressed each claim in turn. First, with respect to the state law claim of retaliatory discharge, the Court stated that Darchak had to demonstrate that she was discharged, that the discharge was retaliatory, and that the discharge violated a clear mandate of public policy. The Court concluded that the claim failed on both the first and third elements. First, Darchak was not discharged -- her one-year contract was not renewed. Second, the public policy relied on by Darchak -- equal education -- has never been recognized by Illinois courts as support for a retaliatory discharge claim. With respect to her First Amendment retaliation claim, the Court concluded that the Board of Education was not liable under Monell. Although Darchak alleged that the principal was a final policymaker, the Court stated that Illinois law makes the Board the final policymaker. The Court agreed that the Board's adoption of the principal's recommendation could be a basis for liability but only if they adopted the retaliatory basis as well. The Court found no evidence of that. Finally, with respect to the Title VII national origin discrimination claim, the Court noted that she put forth both a direct and an indirect case. The Court rejected her indirect method approach because she could not demonstrate pretext with respect to the Board's reasons for nonrenewal. On her direct method, however, the court found that Darchak presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to reach a jury. The evidence of derogatory remarks followed shortly by a disciplinary notice from the principal follow later by the nonrenewal establish a prima facie case. The fact that Darchak's testimony is uncorroborated and self-serving does not change that result, as the district court believed. The testimony is based on her first-hand experience and deserves to be considered. The Court concluded that the evidence raised a question of intent that had to go to the jury.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

WATERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (September 2, 2009)

Daniel Waters was a painter in the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT). In 2000, he refused a request by his supervisor to participate in a political campaign. At about the same time, he twice contacted local investigative journalists. On one occasion, he complained about a bridge that he thought was in such a state of disrepair that it was a danger to the public. On the other occasion, he complained that the City was making some improvements to a piece of property and that it did not own. Several of his superiors were unhappy with his conduct. He was transferred into a job working for a supervisor for whom he had worked before several times. Their relationship was strained, at best. Within a matter of weeks, Waters had several run-ins with his supervisor and was reported multiple times for violent behavior. A deputy commissioner recommended his firing. The department did not act on the recommendation. Department policy required that Waters be given an opportunity to respond to the charges of violence before any discipline was handed out. Waters provided his side of the story -- but the department ruled that his conduct amounted to violence in the workplace. The deputy commissioner resubmitted his recommendation. A pre-termination hearing was held. Commissioner Rice, who held the only authority to fire, terminated Waters. Waters sued the City under § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation. A jury awarded Waters $225,000 in damages and the court awarded more than $1 million in back pay, front pay and pension benefits. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Tinder vacated, reversed and remanded. The Court stated that, under Monell, a city can be liable for a constitutional deprivation but only if it resulted from a policy or practice, or that the injury was caused by someone with final policymaking authority. Waters relied on the latter prong. Final policymaking authority comes from state and local law, though. Here, said the Court, local law gives policymaking authority to the City Council, which has delegated it to the Commissioner of Human Resources. Although the Court recognized that department commissioners do have some authority to execute existing policy, they do not have policymaking authority. Since Commissioner Rice had no such authority, municipal liability cannot be based on her actions. The Court went on to note that Waters presented no evidence that Rice’s termination was in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Even if she had policymaking authority, the absence of that evidence would have defeated his claim.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

FAIRLEY v. ANDREWS (August 20, 2009

Fairley and Gackowski were employed as guards at the Cook County Jail. Both complained about their fellow guards' mistreatment of prisoners. After one particularly brutal incident, the affected prisoners filed suit. Fairley and Gackowski infuriated some of the other guards by their willingness to testify truthfully about their knowledge of the incident. They were both harassed and taunted, verbally and physically. Ultimately, they both quit. Fairley testified in a deposition a few weeks before he quit. Gackowski gave a deposition after he quit. Both testified at the trial, which resulted in a defense verdict. Fairley and Gackowski brought an action under § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated their free speech rights by assaulting them as a result of their willingness to report the abuse of prisoners and to testify truthfully. Shortly before trial, the district court ordered the exclusion of all evidence of events that occurred prior to the plaintiffs’ depositions. The judge reasoned that anything that occurred prior to their speech could not be considered as retaliation or punishment for that speech. Without that evidence, the guards accepted a dismissal. Fairley and Gackowski appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first clarified its jurisdiction, given the guards' acceptance of a dismissal after the court’s evidentiary ruling. The Court concluded that a party can decide that further pursuit of its case in the trial court is hopeless and accept a judgment against it in order to appeal. On the merits, the Court addressed both of plaintiffs' theories: that the defendants punished them for reporting defendants’ misconduct and that defendants taunted them to prevent their future testimony. On the first theory, the Court concluded that their claim was barred by Garcetti. Garcetti provides that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is part of one's job. Here, one guard’s report about another guard's conduct is part of the job. But Garcetti applies as against an employer - here, the defendants are coworkers. The Court concluded that it did not have to reach the coworker issue. The guards' Monell argument that the jail had a policy against reporting any guard misconduct linked the employer's liability and the coworker's liability. On the second theory of liability, however, the Court concluded that Garcetti did not control. The speech at issue in the second theory was the guards' testimony in the prisoners' trial. That speech is not part of the job. The Court concluded that Fairley and Gackowski could recover against a defendant who made threats that were designed to discourage their trial testimony.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

BROOKS v. ROSS (August 20, 2009)

Victor Brooks served on the Illinois Prison Review Board ("PRB"). One of the functions of the PRB is to make certain parole decisions. In 2002, the parole request of inmate Harry Aleman came before the PRB. The hearing was unusual both because of Aleman's notoriety for murder and bribery and because a Department of Corrections employee provided a statement in support of his parole. Brooks cast the only vote in support of parole. Because of the high profile of the situation, the department began an investigation. The investigation resulted in several reports, some of which accused Brooks of accepting bribes to vote in favor of parole. Eventually, Brooks and the department employee were indicted for their conduct -- and later acquitted. Brooks filed suit under § 1983 and state law against numerous state officials, alleging claims of deprivation of due process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Brooks appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Wood and Tinder affirmed. The Court chose to address the claims under principles of timeliness, sovereign immunity and pleading requirements. First, a § 1983 claim borrows its statute of limitations from a state personal injury action. Here, that limitation is two years. Brooks' complaint was filed within two years of his acquittal, but more than two years after his indictment. The malicious prosecution and federal due process claims both require an allegation of acquittal and are therefore timely. The federal and state conspiracy claims and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim complain of his prosecution. An acquittal is not a pleading element of any of them. Under Illinois law, the Court concluded that the indictment was a single overt act that triggered the statute of limitations for those claims. They are therefore time-barred. Second, Illinois law requires tort suits against the state to be brought in the Illinois Court of Claims. Although the Court recognized the exception if a state actor exceeds his authority, it concluded that the malicious prosecution claim did not fall within the exception and was therefore barred. Finally, the Court concluded that Brooks' due process claim did not meet the pleading requirements of the Supreme Court's recent opinions in Twombly, Erickson and Iqbal. Under those cases, a plaintiff is required to provide notice of his claim, a court must accept allegations as true unless they fail to provide sufficient notice, and the court need not accept conclusory or abstract allegations. Here, Brooks does provide many specific allegations, but the allegations describe conduct that is just as consistent with legal behavior as it is with illegal behavior. The only allegations that adequately describe illegal behavior merely recite the elements of the cause of action and do not put the defendants on notice of their specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the Constitution or law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

BENTZ v. CITY OF KENDALLVILLE (August 14, 2009)

The local police arrived at the home of Dr. Bernard Leonelli, responding to reports of a domestic dispute. An officer observed a large fire on the front lawn and was told by bystanders that a fight was taking place inside the home. The officer approached Leonelli, who was standing on his front porch, and asked to speak with him. Instead, Leonelli walked into the house, where the officer observed him reaching for something. The officer entered the house, arrested Leonelli and searched the premises for a possible victim of domestic abuse. Leonelli brought an action against the city under § 1983, alleging that both the arrest and the search were unreasonable and unlawful. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Leonelli appealed -- but died before the appeal was heard. His personal representative seeks to continue the appeal on his behalf.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Posner and Kanne granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal. Section 1983 is silent on whether a claim survives death. Instead, the Court stated, the state’s survival statute applies. A court must first characterize the § 1983 claim and decide which state tort is most analogous. With respect to the arrest claim, the Court noted that the plaintiff had to establish the fact of a seizure and its unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the closest Indiana tort was false imprisonment, the elements of which are almost identical to those for false arrest. Since an Indiana tort of false imprisonment does not survive the death of the plaintiff, neither does Leonelli's false arrest claim. With respect to the unlawful entry and search, the Court stated that the facts of the case were closely analogous to both a state trespass claim, which does survive, and a state invasion of privacy claim, which does not survive. The proper analysis, however, focuses on the elements of the federal claim, not the specific facts of the case. Looking at it from that perspective, the Court concluded that an expectation of privacy is the core of the unreasonable search claim. The federal claim is more analogous to invasion of privacy than it is to trespass. The claim does not survive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MCBRIDE V. GRICE (August 11, 2009) 

Dytaniel McBride owns and operates a clothing store in Peoria. One day, McBride got into a disagreement with one of his employees. She began calling him names and generally creating a scene. McBride summoned the police by activating an alarm. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, however, he physically removed his employee from the store. She called the police and met them when they arrived in response to the alarm. A police officer interviewed both of the individuals and reviewed some portion of a security tape -- and then arrested both of them. After the charges against McBride were dismissed, he filed a lawsuit alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because of his arrest without probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. McBride appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the burden of persuasion in a § 1983 case. The person complaining that he was arrested without probable cause bears the burden of establishing the absence of probable cause. The same holds true, added the Court, for a state law claim of illegal arrest. On the merits, the Court had little difficulty in finding probable cause. In fact, the employee told the police officer that McBride hit her in the head. A police officer is entitled to base his determination of probable cause on information he receives from the victim -- assuming he reasonably believes she is telling the truth. Although an officer should not ignore facts or inquiries that might clarify the situation, he may end his investigation once he is satisfied that probable cause exists. The witness’ statement and a scratch on her head were enough for the officer to reasonably believe that McBride committed the offense of battery under Illinois law. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

BAIRD v. RENBARGER (August 3, 2009)

Joe Baird owned a body shop in Shelbyville, Indiana. After he purchased an antique automobile, he had his office call the police department to check the vehicle's motor number. Although an officer verified the number, he soon thereafter reported his suspicion to a prosecutor that the number was altered. He obtained a search warrant for the automobile and he and several other officers, including Officer Renbarger, executed the warrant. Officer Renbarger carried a 9 mm. submachine gun and rounded up a number of people in the surrounding shops and warehouses, including a group of Amish men. He held the individuals for almost two hours while the search was conducted. The officers located the car and concluded that the motor number had not been altered. Baird brought suit against the officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. He alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and state law claims for trespass, negligence and false imprisonment. The district court denied Renbarger's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Renbarger appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Wood affirmed. The Court set out the two-step Saucier inquiry: whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Whether the seizure was unreasonable is an objective test requiring an analysis of the severity of the alleged crime, the presence of an immediate threat and whether there is any resistance. Here, these factors all support the unreasonableness of the seizure. The only alleged crime concerned a vehicle motor number. No officer had any reason to believe there was any imminent threat. No one resisted the detention. The Court concluded that a jury could find that Renbarger violated Baird's rights. With respect to the second step of the inquiry, the Court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers are not entitled to point guns at citizens when there is no suggestion of any danger. The Court concurred with the district court's denial of qualified immunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

HOLLINS v. MILWAUKEE (July 31, 2009)

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

VALENTINO v. SOUTH CHICAGO HEIGHTS (July 30, 2009)

Sandra Valentino worked for the Village of South Chicago Heights for several years. In 2001, she became suspicious of Mayor David Owen's hiring practices. She was aware that the Village employed many of the mayor's friends and family members. She believed that many of these employees were on a “ghost payroll,” i.e., being paid for work they did not perform. She shared her concerns with William Bramanti, a former village employee who quit as a result of a dispute with the mayor. Bramanti submitted a FOIA request to the village for employee time records. At the same time, Valentino began to make copies of the daily employee sign-in sheets. In February of 2003, Bramanti accused the mayor publicly of ghost payrolling. The very next business day, the Village Administrator searched Valentino's desk, found the copies, and fired Valentino when she arrived for work. Valentino filed a § 1983 action against the Village, the mayor and others. She alleged retaliation in violation of her First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Valentino appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first looked to whether Valentino's speech was constitutionally protected, i.e., whether she spoke as a private citizen on a matter of concern. The Court found it "well-established" that speech which protests government waste is entitled to constitutional protection. Although the Court recognized that Valentino had a private interest in determining whether she was receiving proper compensation, it concluded that her speech was protected since she was not motivated solely by those personal interests. The Court next addressed whether there was evidence that the protected speech was a motivating factor in her termination. The Court found the circumstantial evidence -- knowledge of her relationship with Bramanti, the search of her desk, the search and firing the day after Bramanti's public accusations, and a comment by the mayor threatening her employment -- sufficient to take that issue to a jury. That same evidence, as well as the fact that the sign-in sheets were on public display and were simply copied by Valentino, was enough for the Court to conclude that a jury could also find the village's stated reason for her termination pretextual. Thus, the Court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants. With respect to the Monell claim, the Court stated that the Village could be liable for the constitutional violation if it was caused by an individual with final policymaking authority. The question for the Court was whether Owens had final authority on matters of hiring and firing. The Court concluded that the evidence was conclusive that Mayor Owen made personnel decisions for the village without any meaningful oversight, and thus had final authority. The Court reversed the district court with respect to the village's liability under Monell. Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that the Illinois Tort Immunity Act immunized them. That Act immunizes village officials from certain discretionary policy decisions. The decision to fired Valentino was not a policy decision -- the defendants are not entitled to immunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CASNA v. CITY OF LOVES PARK (July 24, 2009)

From 1996 through 2003, Mary Casna worked for the City of Loves Park in two different positions. Though she had a serious hearing impairment, it did not interfere with her performance. In her second job, Casna and one of her superiors did not enjoy a good working relationship. The City transferred her to a temporary police clerk position for six months in order to evaluate her performance in a less volatile atmosphere. Casna's hearing impairment became an issue. In one particular episode, Casna explained to her supervisor, Kay Elliot, that she had not heard her make a request. Elliot snapped: "How can you work if you cannot hear?" Casna accused Elliot of being discriminatory. Elliot consulted with her supervisor and prepared a written performance evaluation, even though Casna was only two months into the job. At the police chief's request, and based on the negative evaluation, the Mayor fired Casna. Casna brought suit against the City, the Mayor and the Police Chief. She alleged that she was fired in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. She also alleged that the City violated Due Process by discharging her without a hearing. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. Casna appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Sykes reversed and remanded. On the due process claim, the Court stated that Casna must establish a property interest that is guaranteed by the Constitution but found in Illinois law. Relying on Illinois’ civil service statute, the Court concluded that her first position was exempt but that her second job was not exempt (although the resolution appointing her said it was). Although the Court agreed that a temporary position (her third job) is normally exempt, the Court also concluded that the City could not transfer Casna out of a protected job into an unprotected job and then fire her without process. The Court also rejected the City’s reliance on the requirement that a protected employee obtain her job through the civil service process. Since it was the City that wrongfully tried to make the second position exempt, the Court held that it was estopped from relying on that requirement. Casna is entitled to prove her damages, if any, arising from the lack of process. The Court also reversed the lower court on the retaliation claim. It concluded that Casna’s single statement to Elliot complaining of discrimination, though informal, was sufficient to amount to “protected activity.” Finally, although the Court cautioned that suspicious timing is rarely enough to establish a triable issue on causation, it concluded that it did here, where the police chief recommended her termination the day after the protected activity.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

HALLINAN v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OF CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7 (June 25, 2009)

Shawn Hallinan and Wayne Harej were Chicago police officers and members of the police union, the Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7 (the Union). They led an effort to unseat the Union’s president and his organization in early 2005. During the course of the campaign, they discovered that the president had underreported his income. They reported the matter to the Attorney General and discussed it publicly. The president was, nevertheless, reelected. The Union soon suspended, and then expelled, the two men from the Union. At the Union's request, the City of Chicago converted the two men into "fair-share payers." Fair-share payers are those members of the Police Department who are not Union members and do not pay Union membership dues but who contribute a "fair-share" for the Union's continued representation of them in matters concerning their wages, hours and working conditions. Hallinan and Harej brought an action against the Union under section 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court dismissed the action for plaintiffs’ failure to plead state action. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Sykes affirmed. The allegations of constitutional violations in the complaint, noted the Court, are actionable only against conduct of the government -- not against private conduct. Unions, of course, are not government actors. A deprivation of a constitutional right may be actionable against a private actor in certain limited circumstances. The Court noted several examples: when the state compels the action, when the private actor is only nominally private, when the state delegates its function to a private actor, etc. Here, the state action alleged is that the Union is the sole collective bargaining unit for the Chicago Police. However, the acts complained of were not taken in concert or in agreement with the City. They were exclusively internal actions. The Court concluded that there was not enough evidence of entanglement by the City to give rise to state action. Although the Court agreed with the district court that the claim should be dismissed for failure to allege state action, it corrected the district court’s categorization of it as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An absence of a proper allegation of state action is simply a failure to plead an essential element of the claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

ASKEW v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY (May 18, 2009)

Carl Askew alleges that he was the victim of excessive force at the hands of Officer Lopez while a pretrial detainee in the Cook County Jail. He filed a lawsuit naming Lopez and the Sheriff. He included two theories of relief under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -- that Lopez used excessive force and that Lopez was deliberately indifferent to his safety. The district court dismissed his complaint on the grounds that he failed to name Cook County as a defendant. Askew appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner and Wood vacated and remanded. The Court concluded that the district court misapplied Rule 19. Rule 19 draws a distinction between joinder of parties when it is feasible and joinder of parties when it is not feasible -- because it would defeat jurisdiction or the party is beyond the personal jurisdiction of the court or the party could make an objection to the venue. Rule 19 (a)(1) addresses a "required party" whose joinder is feasible. Once such a party is identified, Rule 19 (a)(2) requires a court to order that the person be made a party. Here, the Court concluded that the lower court was correct in finding that Cook County was a required party, at least part of it. It correctly read Carver II for the proposition that an Illinois county is a necessary party in any suit seeking damages from its sheriff. Ironically, Askew waived his claim against the Sheriff in his appellate brief. Although he did so under the mistaken impression that the lower court was correct in dismissing the claim against the Sheriff, he is bound by his waiver. The case may still proceed against Lopez, however. The county is not an indispensable party in the case against Lopez. Any judgment entered against Lopez would be entered against him in his individual capacity notwithstanding any right on his part to recover the judgment from the county.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

GUZMAN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (May 13, 2009)

Sgt. Bonnstetter of the Chicago Police Department met with an ex-convict who wanted to share information regarding gang activity with the police. The informant provided valuable information and identified pictures of known gang members. He specifically advised Sergeant Bonnstetter that he was aware of the location of gang member Ruben Estrada. He told Bonnstetter that Estrada lived with his family in a single-family residence at an address on the west side of Chicago. He advised that he had seen Estrada at the residence with a handgun. He even drove by the house with an FBI agent and confirmed the location. Although there was a small sign in the front window, the agent assumed that it was a single family residence. Based on this information, Bonnstetter obtain an affidavit to search the premises and Estrada's person. When the officers arrived to execute the search warrant, they realized there was a separate door leading to a business and another door leading to a stairway to the second floor. At some point, it became clear that the building contained a first floor office, a first floor apartment, and a second floor apartment. The officers broke into the second-floor apartment and encountered Maira Guzman. With guns drawn, the officers searched the apartment -- but found nothing. Guzman brought a lawsuit against the City and several officers under 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging that the search was unreasonable and a violation of her constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Guzman appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Evans reversed and remanded. The Court identified the two different ways of evaluating an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. A court must look at both the issuance of a warrant and the execution of the warrant. Here, with respect to its issuance, the Court determined that there was sufficient indicia of reliability with respect to the informant to support probable cause. The informant provided information known to the police and identified a number of known gang members. With respect to the execution of the warrant, however, the Court disagreed with the district court. The Court specifically noted the "not uncommon" problems that arise with multiple living units. In executing the warrant in this case, the Court concluded that the officers were aware early in their search that the building was not a single-family residence, as expected and as described in the warrant. The proper course at that stage was to have called off the search. By continuing the execution of the warrant, the police violated Guzman's constitutional rights.

Judge Rovner wrote separately and concurred in the holding and reasoning. She did not join in that part of Judge Evans’ opinion in which, in dicta, he discussed Fourth Amendment rights in the context of civil actions as opposed to criminal suppression motions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

BROOKS v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO (May 1, 2009)

Terence Brooks was arrested, allegedly without probable cause, in May 2004 by two Chicago police officers. The charges were dropped and he was released after about three weeks in custody. A few months later, he was indicted as a result of evidence seized at the time of the arrest. A warrant was issued when he failed to appear in court on the indictment. Brooks was arrested on the warrant by different police officers in May of 2007. Again, the charges were dismissed and Brooks was released. Brooks brought an action against the City of Chicago and the police officers who were responsible for the 2004 arrest. He brought due process and false arrest claims under § 1983, as well as claims under state law. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, although it purported to complain of the 2007 arrest, it depended entirely on the 2004 arrest. Claims based on the 2004 arrest were barred by the statute of limitations. Brooks appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Rovner affirmed. The Court recognized that Brooks' theory was that the 2007 arrest culminated from a series of events that began with the allegedly unlawful 2004 arrest. The Court noted, however, that the existence of the warrant supported probable cause for the 2007 arrest. One cannot maintain a false arrest claim based on an arrest made with probable cause. Even if Brooks had a false arrest claim in 2004, his arrest in 2007 cannot revive that claim. The Court also rejected Brooks' due process claim on the grounds that it was merely a recast false imprisonment claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

RUJAWITZ v. MARTIN (April 2, 2009)

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

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

MARION v. THE CITY OF CORYDON (March 23, 2009)

Having been caught shoplifting, Trent Marion fled from police, scuffled with police, fled again, and led police on a high-speed chase down a divided highway. For miles, Marion eluded the police and their attempts to stop him. Even with three deflated tires, Marion refused to stop. Eventually, Marion swerved into the median and drove toward the other side of the highway. The police surrounded and fired shots at the vehicle. Marion continued to rev his engine and shift from forward to reverse. The police continued firing at the vehicle until Marion stopped. Marion suffered serious gunshot wounds. He filed suit under §1983, claiming that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Although Marion opposed the motion, he did not file an affidavit. He did submit an affidavit with a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion. Marion appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court first concluded that it would not consider Marion's affidavit. The Court could consider it only if it consisted of newly discovered evidence, which it did not. On the merits of Marion's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the Court stated that it would apply an objective reasonableness standard and consider the totality of the circumstances. The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the police officers to believe that Marion posed a threat to their safety and the safety of nearby motorists while he was in the median. The amount of force they employed was therefore reasonable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

GOLDEN YEARS HOMESTEAD v. BUCKLAND (February 19, 2009)

Golden Years Homestead, Inc. (“Golden Years”) operates a nursing facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana. In early 2000, the Indiana Department of Health (“IDH”) conducted an annual certification inspection, as required by Golden Years’ participation in the Medicaid program. The inspection took place over a span of ten days. At some point during the inspection, the inspection team became upset with the conduct of the Golden Years’ team. From then on, the inspection team became loud, overly critical, hostile and accusatory. The team left information favorable to Golden Years out of its report. Golden Years was cited for seventeen violations. After a six-day evidentiary hearing and administrative appeals, all but one of the citations was reversed. Golden Years brought a lawsuit against the inspectors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations and state law claims for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for the inspectors. Golden Years appeals the dismissal of the state law claims.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed Golden Years’s complaint that the court dismissed the state law claims sua sponte. The Court disagreed. Although the inspectors did not specifically address the state law issues in their motion, they did ask for all counts to be dismissed. Furthermore, Golden Years actually addressed the state law counts in its response. The lower court acknowledged the general rule that a court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims if all federal claims are dismissed before trial. The Court approved the lower court’s invocation of the exception to the rule when the state law claims are meritless. On the substance of the malicious prosecution claim, the Court stated that Golden Years was required to prove malice. Although it seemed to accept that the inspectors’ conduct was overzealous and unprofessional, the Court concluded that the evidence did not support personal animosity or malice. Similarly, the Court concluded that the evidence of hostility and rancor was insufficient to establish the ulterior motive requirement for abuse of process.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks