: Section 1983 : In Their Opinion

Home > Section 1983 >

Genuine Issues Of Material Fact Preclude Summary Judgment On Qualified Immunity

Posted on August 31, 2010 by Michael Rigney

MCALLISTER v. PRICE (August 12, 2010)

Frank McAllister, who suffers from diabetes, was driving his car alone early one afternoon when he suddenly went into a severe hypoglycemic state. McAllister's car struck two other vehicles before coming to rest. Although McAllister was not injured, witnesses described him as staring into space and convulsing. Burns Harbor police officer Jerry Price responded. The dispatch advised Price that the accident may have been caused by an intoxicated driver. Price confronted McAllister. When McAllister failed to follow his instructions or respond to his questions, Price removed him from his car with force. According to a witness, Price threw him to the ground, put his full weight on his back, and handcuffed him. Eventually, and only after the suggestion of a bystander, Price checked McAllister for medical alert identification. He discovered a diabetes alert necklace on McAllister and released him. McAllister suffered from a broken hip and a bruised lung. He brought a § 1983 complaint against Price. Judge Van Bokkelen (N.D. Ind.) denied Price's request for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact. Price brought an interlocutory appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Tinder affirmed. A qualified immunity defense requires that a court answer two questions: whether there is a constitutional deprivation and whether the constitutional right was "clearly established" at the time. The Court first addressed the deprivation -- whether Price used excessive force. Three factors mattered: the degree of severity of any offense, whether the victim was a safety threat, and whether the victim was a flight risk. Before addressing the merits of the excessive force claim, the Court resolved two evidentiary issues. First, it concluded that the district court did not err in allowing evidence of McAllister's hip injury, even though there was no conclusive medical testimony that Price's actions caused the injury. Some causal evidence is all that is required for the jury to consider the evidence. Second, the Court concluded that the district court did not err in considering McAllister's diabetic condition. Although a police officer is not required to accommodate unknown conditions, here McAllister was obviously suffering from something and Price was trained in recognizing diabetes, trained in recognizing intoxication, and trained to look for medical alert identifications. On the merits of the constitutional deprivation question, the Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the amount of force used was excessive. On the second question, the Court concluded that the case law in effect at the time of the incident was sufficient to "clearly establish" McAllister's rights to be free from the excessive force as alleged.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Clearly Established Law, Constitutional Law, Excessive Force, Qualified Immunity, Section 1983

Prisoner Capable Of Representing Himself In A Civil Case Was Not Entitled To Appointment Of Counsel

Posted on August 26, 2010 by Michael Rigney

ROMANELLI v. SULIENE (August 11, 2010)

Ron Romanelli was incarcerated at the Columbia County Jail. He claims that he was in desperate need of medical attention while incarcerated and that Dr. Suliene and Sgt. Kuhl violated his rights to adequate medical care. The district court granted Romanelli leave to proceed on his § 1983 claim but denied his motion for court-appointed counsel as premature. The court denied a second motion a few months later, concluding that Romanelli was capable of representing himself. After the court denied the defendant's motions for summary judgment, it also denied Romanelli's third request for counsel. The court concluded that the case was not complex, that Romanelli had successfully defeated the summary judgment motions, and that the Romanelli was provided with detailed trial instructions. The case proceeded to trial before Magistrate Judge Crocker. The Magistrate Judge ruled that the defendants were permitted to impeach Romanelli with evidence of prior convictions for issuing worthless checks, bail jumping, and sexual assault -- he did not permit impeachment with evidence of Romanelli's convictions for resisting/obstructing an officer and failure to report as a sex offender. A jury concluded that Romanelli did not suffer from a serious medical condition. The court entered judgment in favor of the defendants. Romanelli appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted the absence of any right to counsel in a civil case but added that a district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to appoint counsel. In exercising that discretion, the court should examine whether the plaintiff is indigent, whether the plaintiff has made reasonable attempts to retain counsel, whether the case is complex, and whether the plaintiff is capable of representing himself. The Court concluded that the district court applied that proper standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying court-appointed counsel to Romanelli. The court acted within its discretion in denying a) the first motion -- it was too early for the court to make the necessary determinations, b) the second motion -- exceptional circumstances were absent and the court made a threshold determination that Romanelli was capable of representing himself in a relatively simple case, and c) the third motion -- Romanelli had proven himself capable of his own representation. The Court added that Romanelli had a very weak case on the facts and suffered no obvious prejudice due to the lack of professional representation. With respect to the evidence of prior convictions, the Court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Court relied on the facts that almost all of the evidence relating to Romanelli's prior convictions was brought into the record by Romanelli himself and that the court included limiting instructions to the jury. Finally, the Court also noted that any evidentiary error would have been harmless given Romanelli's lack of credibility and the dearth of corroborating evidence.

Tags: Opinion by Kanne, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Court-Appointed Counsel, Evidence, Federal Statute - Other, Impeachment, Prior Convictions, Section 1983

Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Claim Alleging Unlawful Activity Leading To Conviction Does Not Accrue Until Conviction Is Lifted

Posted on August 5, 2010 by Michael Rigney

PARISH v. CITY OF ELKHART (July 30, 2010)

A jury found Christopher Parish guilty of the 1996 shooting of Michael Kershner in his Elkhart, Indiana home. Evidence uncovered during his post-conviction proceedings supported a different conclusion: that Kershner was shot in a drug deal and was not even in his home at the time, and that local police threatened witnesses and otherwise fabricated evidence in an effort to falsely convict Parish of the crime. Parish's conviction was vacated in 2006 by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The state then dropped all charges. Parish brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging the denial of a fair trial. He also brought state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Judge Lozano (N.D. Ind.) dismissed all but the § 1983 fair trial claim on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted Parish's request for a Rule 54(b) certification. Parish appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in part. Parish conceded, at oral argument, the propriety of the dismissal with respect to the claims for false arrest and false imprisonment. Thus, the only issue on appeal is the dismissal of the IIED claim. The parties agreed that the statute of limitations for the claim is two years from the date it accrued. The Court discussed four cases in its analysis of when an Indiana IIED claim accrues. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not bring a § 1983 suit for damages until his conviction was overturned. A judgment would have implied the invalidity of his conviction – the claim was therefore an improper collateral attack on the conviction. An Indiana appellate court followed Heck in Scruggs, when it dismissed false imprisonment claims. The Scruggs plaintiffs, still imprisoned, were also attacking the validity of their convictions. Next, in Wallace, the Supreme Court held that a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment requires a detention without legal process and therefore ends when legal process (e.g., appearance before a magistrate) is granted. The cause of action accrues at the same time -- when the false imprisonment ends. The Court distinguished Heck. Unlike in Heck, the Wallace claim for false imprisonment did not challenge the validity of a conviction. In fact, it did not even require a conviction. Finally, in Johnson, another Indiana appellate court concluded that a false arrest claim accrued at the time of arraignment (when process was granted) but that other claims of emotional discretion and invasion of privacy based on an unreasonable search accrued at the time of the search. Thus, the general rule requires an examination of whether the tort was complete before conviction (e.g., an IIED claim tied to an unreasonable search) or not (e.g. an IIED claim tied to a false conviction). If the former, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort. If the latter, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort unless it directly implicates the validity of the conviction. If it does, the claim does not accrue until the conviction has been lifted. Applying these principles to Parish's claim, the Court concluded that the IIED claims were not complete prior to conviction. In fact, the conviction was an integral part of Parish’s IIED allegations. The Court then concluded that the claim also attacks the validity of Parish's conviction and could not have been brought while the conviction was still outstanding. Parish brought the claim within two years of his exoneration – it is timely.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Accrual, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Fair Trial, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Rule 54(b), Section 1983, Statute of Limitations

§ 1983 Plaintiff Fails To Prove His Post-Acquittal Brady Claim (If One Even Exists)

Posted on August 3, 2010 by Michael Rigney

MOSLEY v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 29, 2010)

It was mid-summer 1999 when Jovan Mosley and three other individuals were standing near the porch of a friend when Howard Thomas walked by. The four of them ran at Thomas. Thomas was beaten to death and the four of them left the area together. All four were arrested and charged with murder. The police took statements from them as well as several eyewitnesses. One eyewitness, Anton Williams, viewed Mosley in a lineup and identified him as a person who was on the scene. The lineup was not documented until 15 months later and the report does not what Williams said about Mosley's particular role in the murder. Another eyewitness, Gregory Reed, implicated all four of the defendants in the beating and specifically identified Mosley as having participated. Reed never testified at trial because he admitted to the prosecutor just before trial that he was quite drunk the night of the incident and had no independent recollection. Mosley remained in jail for over five years until he was tried and acquitted by a jury (see this for commentary on that delay). He brought a § 1983 action against the City of Chicago and several individual police officers who were involved in the investigation. He alleged a due process denial for the withholding of exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Mosley appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Wood affirmed. The Court first addressed the main issue, the failure to produce exculpatory evidence under Brady. The claim has two parts: a) that the prosecutors did not inform Mosley that Williams told the police at the lineup that Mosley did not participate in the beating, and b) that the prosecutors did not tell Mosley that Reed admitted to being drunk on the night of the incident. The Court noted the "logical tension" in a Brady claim when the case results in an acquittal. The normal test for a Brady claim is that the non-disclosed evidence could put the case in a different light and undermine confidence in the verdict. That test makes no sense when the verdict is an acquittal. In fact, the Court noted that several circuits have concluded that a Brady claim cannot exist after an acquittal. The Court has reserved answering that question in the past and did so again. In Bielanski, the Court concluded that the elements of a post-acquittal Brady claim, if one even exists, are a) the withholding of material and favorable evidence, and b) that would have changed the prosecutor’s decision to try the case. Since Mosley cannot meet either element, his Brady claim fails. With respect to the lineup, the Court concluded that there was literally no evidence in the record that Williams told police that Mosley did not participate in the crime. Other than a one-word answer to a leading question on cross-examination, his testimony was inconsistent with that conclusion. In addition, even if it was said, the prosecutors approach would not have changed. It did not have to prove that Mosley actually participated to prevail on the accountability theory it was pursuing. With respect to Reed being drunk, the prosecutor had no obligation to disclose the statement since Reed never testified at trial. The Court next addressed the state malicious prosecution claim, one of the elements of which is the lack of probable cause. The Court had no difficulty in concluding that the district court's finding that probable cause existed was correct. Finally, with respect to the civil conspiracy claim, the Court pointed out that Mosley offered no evidence of the common scheme element of the conspiracy claim. At the summary judgment stage, Mosley cannot rest on the allegations of his complaint but must come forward with evidence.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Brady Violation, Civil Conspiracy, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Malicious Prosecution, Section 1983

Dismissal Of First Amendment Challenge To Ordinance Is Upheld

Posted on July 22, 2010 by Michael Rigney

BRANDT v. VILLAGE OF WINNETKA (July 20, 2010)

William Brandt, Jr. resides in Winnetka, Illinois and is active politically. He has hosted several receptions for candidates and officeholders at his home. In the aftermath of such an event in 1996 for President Clinton, Winnetka passed an ordinance that requires event sponsors to pay for the “special services” required by the events. Special services includes things like additional police presence and traffic control measures. Notwithstanding the ordinance, Winnetka has not asked Brandt to pay for any special services occasioned by the several events he has sponsored since its passage. The village has invoked the ordinance on three occasions -- one for President Bush and two for Laura Bush. Political committees, rather than the individual sponsor, paid for at least two of those events. Brandt filed suit pursuant to § 1983, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. He alleged that it "chilled" his willingness to sponsor events and that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination on the theory that more controversial candidates would require more special services. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill) dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Brandt lacked standing. Brandt appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Tinder affirmed as modified. The Court noted that the district court dismissed for lack of standing because Brandt had not established an injury -- but also mentioned its belief that the issue was not ripe and that it may be an improper case to exercise the court's discretion to issue a declaratory judgment. The Court concluded that the district court was in error when it found an absence of standing. Standing can be found when there is an actual or impending injury, even though that injury may be small and not absolutely certain. Here, the Court found sufficient injury (as well as causation and redressability) to support standing. The Court concurred with the district court, however, in its decision not to exercise its discretion to issue a declaratory judgment. Brandt does not challenge the ordinance on its face -- only as applied. The record does not show that the ordinance will be applied in a discriminatory fashion or that it has had any effect on speech. Such an abstract record does not lend itself to a constitutional adjudication at this time.

Tags: Opinion by Easterbrook, As Applied, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Jurisdiction, Pre-Enforcement Challenge, Ripeness, Section 1983, Standing

Complaint Arising From State Court Child Custody Orders Is Barred By Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Michael Rigney

GOLDEN v. HELEN SIGMAN & ASSOCIATES (July 2, 2010)

Bruce Golden and his wife were involved in a bitter and hostile divorce. The dispute centered principally on the division of their assets and the custody of their only child. Golden added a battlefield when he brought suit in federal court. The defendants included his child’s court appointed representative and his wife’s attorneys, close friend and neighbor, and two business associates. His claims were based on federal copyright law, RICO, and § 1983 as well as several state law theories. He accused the lawyers of defamation, the lawyers and business associates of copyright infringement, the representative of defamation and failing to maintain neutrality, and the neighbor of a false 911 report. Judge Gottschall (N.D. Ill.) stayed the copyright infringement claim pending completion of the state court divorce proceedings and dismissed all other claims -- the RICO claim for failure to plead sufficiently the predicate acts and pattern of racketeering activity, the § 1983 claim because the representative had not acted under color of state law and enjoyed absolute immunity, and the state law claims by choosing not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The lawyers, the representative, and the friend all sought sanctions under Rule 11. The district court concluded that some of the claims did violate Rule 11 and ordered Golden to pay the defendants' attorneys' fees for the offending claims. Golden settled with the attorneys and appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Wood, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted that the only merits decision challenged on appeal was the § 1983 claim against the representative. It identified a potentially thorny issue with respect to absolute immunity. Although a child representative is entitled to absolute immunity when carrying out its court appointed duties, it may not be when it functions in a role closer to that of the child's attorney. The complaint did allege acts relating to that role. The Court declined to resolve that issue, however, instead identifying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a jurisdictional bar. Under that doctrine, a party may not seek redress in a lower federal court for an injury caused by a state court judgment. Here, the Court determined that the only injury Golden complained of arose directly from the state court custody orders. The Court therefore affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim. With respect to sanctions, the Court first rejected Golden's argument that the Rule 11 motions were not timely -- both because he failed to raise it in the district court and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing them. On the fees themselves, the Court concluded that the district court was well within its discretion in identifying counts on which to impose a sanction and in its method of calculating the amount of the sanction. Finally, the Court declined to impose sanctions on Golden for the appeal. Although he raised several frivolous arguments, he did advance some positions that could not be dismissed summarily.

Tags: Opinion by Wood, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Absolute Immunity, Attorneys' Fees, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Rule 11, Section 1983

Constitutional Claim For Election Irregularities Requires Proof Of Intent To Impair Voting Rights

Posted on June 28, 2010 by Michael Rigney

PARRA v. NEAL (June 23, 2010)

Ambrosio Medrano filed the necessary papers to get his name listed as a candidate for 25th Ward Chicago alderman on the February 2007 ballot. Several voters challenged his papers. They asserted that his prior felony conviction prevented him from holding office. The Election Board and the circuit court sided with Medrano. Paper and electronic ballots were prepared with his name. Just four days before the election, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the circuit court. It ordered the Election Board to either remove Medrano’s name from the ballot or, if it remained, to disregard any votes cast for him. The Election Board had insufficient time to correct the ballots. Instead, it posted signs in three languages at all polling places and distributed individual notices to every voter in the ward in which his name was on the ballot. The signs and notices explained that a vote for Medrano would not be counted. Nevertheless, Medrano received 178 votes. Eight of those voters brought an action pursuant to § 1983 claiming that the Election Board violated equal protection by disregarding their votes. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Tinder affirmed. The Court emphasized the reluctance of a federal court to become entangled in state election matters. A § 1983 action can therefore prevail only if the defendants acted willfully and intended to undermine the voting process or impair the plaintiffs' voting rights. The Court found no proof -- or even allegation -- of wrongdoing on the part of the Election Board. In fact, it did what it had to do by following the mandate of the Supreme Court.

Tags: Opinion by Rovner, Constitutional Law, Election Law, Elections, Equal Protection, Right To Vote, Section 1983

Wisconsin Prohibition Of Judges' Endorsements Of Political Candidates Survives A Balancing Test Analysis

Posted on June 21, 2010 by Michael Rigney

SEIFERT v. ALEXANDER (June 14, 2010)

The State of Wisconsin has two sets (primary and general) of elections during its election years. Non-partisan officeholders, including judges and many county and municipal officers, are elected in the spring. Candidates for these positions are slated without party affiliation. In the fall, elections are held for partisan officeholders, including the sheriff and district attorney. In 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court amended the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct to prohibit a judge or judicial candidate from a) being a member of any political party, b) endorsing or speaking on behalf of another candidate, and c) personally soliciting campaign contributions. John Siefert has been a circuit court judge in Wisconsin since 1999. Siefert would like to join the Democratic Party, endorse partisan candidates for office, and solicit contributions for his upcoming campaign. He brought suit pursuant to § 1983 against the members of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for injunctive and declaratory relief. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) declared the rules unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement. The Commission appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner (dissenting in part), and Tinder affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court described its task as an attempt to "harmonize . . . two strains of First Amendment law." On the one hand, in White I, the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in striking down a code of conduct that prohibited judges from taking positions on legal and political issues. On the other hand, the Supreme Court applied the less stringent Pickering standard in Letter Carriers and Garcetti and balanced the public employee's right to speak against the government's interests. The Court addressed each prohibition separately. With respect to the party membership prohibition, the Court found it content-based and applied strict scrutiny. Although a state does have a compelling interest in the lack of bias in its judiciary, the Court found that the prohibition was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest and struck it down. With respect to the partisan candidate endorsement prohibition, the Court noted a distinction between an endorsement of another and speech regarding a judge's own views. The distinction supported the application of a balancing approach instead of strict scrutiny. In balancing the state's interest in a fair judiciary with the judiciary's interest in endorsing candidates, the Court concluded that the state's interest prevailed. The Court did express its concern that the prohibition only applied to partisan elections. That under-inclusiveness could have invalidated the prohibition under a strict scrutiny approach – but the Court concluded that it did not under the balancing approach. Finally, with respect to the personal solicitation prohibition, the Court noted that Buckley created two approaches. Candidates' spending restrictions are met with strict scrutiny -- candidates' contributions restrictions are met with a less rigorous standard. The personal solicitation prohibition was a contribution restriction and therefore analyzed under the less rigorous approach. The Court found a strong state interest in protecting against the appearance of a quid pro quo that a direct personal solicitation might create. Even though the prohibition does not prevent a candidate from a reviewing a contributor list and applies even to family members, where the risk of a quid pro quo is remote, the Court found that the regulation was closely enough drawn to the state's interest to be constitutional.

Judge Rovner agreed with the panel in its treatment of the party membership restriction and the personal solicitation restriction. She dissented, however, from its treatment of the partisan candidate endorsement restriction. Her fundamental disagreement was with the majority's application of a balancing test. In her view, White I requires the application of a strict scrutiny standard in evaluating a content-based restriction. Under a strict scrutiny approach, the under-inclusiveness noted by the majority opinion is fatal to its constitutionality.

Tags: Opinion by Tinder, Balancing Test, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Opinion (Dissenting In Part) By Rovner, Section 1983, Strict Scrutiny

Motorist's Traffic Violations Do Not Support Probable Cause If Unknown To The Police

Posted on June 8, 2010 by Michael Rigney

CARMICHAEL v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE (May 21, 2010)

Palatine police officer Timothy Sharkey stopped an automobile being driven by Albert Carmichael and Keith Sawyer as they returned to their motel parking lot. Sharkey searched both Carmichael and the automobile. He found marijuana and cocaine. When asked why he had pulled them over, Sharkey stated that it was because the automobile lacked a front license plate and had tinted windows. After fellow officer Steve Bushore arrived, Sharkey conducted a search of Sawyer. In the motel parking lot, he pulled Sawyer's pants down and shined a flashlight into his underwear. The officers let Sawyer go but arrested Carmichael on drug charges. They also cited him for having no functioning taillights. In his report, Officer Sharkey made no mention of the tinted windows or absence of front license plate. At a hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence, Sharkey testified that the reason for his stop was the non-functioning tail lights, not the license plate or tinted window. Other testimony established that the tail lights were functioning at the time of the stop. The trial judge suppressed the evidence and all charges were dropped. Carmichael and Sawyer sued the Village and the officers under § 1983. They alleged unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and excessive force, as well as state law claims. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. She concluded, on the search and seizure claim, that the fact that a window was tinted and the front plate was missing provided probable cause. On Sawyer's unreasonable search claim, she concluded that it was constitutional without any detailed examination of the manner in which it was carried out. The court found the remainder of the claims waived. Carmichael and Sawyer appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. A traffic stop is reasonable, said the Court, if the police have probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. The inquiry is an objective one and focuses on what the officer knew at the moment of the stop. Here, the tinted window and missing license plate did constitute moving violations and could have supported a stop of the vehicle. However, the uncontroverted evidence is that Officer Sharkey was not aware of either violation at the time to stop. Therefore, probable cause did not exist. For much the same reason, the Court concluded that Sharkey was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also found summary judgment with respect to the search of Sawyer in error. Although the defendants purported to request summary judgment on all counts, they made no mention of this search in their brief in the district court. They bear the initial burden of demonstrating that the summary judgment requirements are met -- they failed to do so. Conversely, the district court was correct in concluding that the plaintiffs waived the remainder of their federal and state law claims because of their perfunctory response to the defendants' request for summary judgment on those issues.

Tags: Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Fourth Amendment, Opinion, Probable Cause, Ripple", Section 1983, Summary Judgment, Unlawful Arrest, Unreasonable Search, by

Complaints About Supervisor In Formal Request For Department Reorganization Are Not Protected Speech Under Garcetti

Posted on June 2, 2010 by Michael Rigney

OGDEN V. ATTERHOLT (MAY 18, 2010)

In late 2006, Paul Ogden was hired as the manager of the Title Insurance Division of the Indiana Department of Insurance. He reported to Carol Mihalik, the head of the Consumer Protection Unit. Mihalik in turn reported to James Atterholt, the Commissioner. From early on, Ogden was critical of Mihalik. He even managed to avoid her and report directly to Atterholt on some of his projects. In September 2007, Ogden took two separate steps related to Mihalik. First, he filed a formal complaint with the State Personnel Division, complaining that Mihalik did not follow hiring regulations, misused funds, and fostered a hostile work environment. A few days later, he delivered a memorandum to Atterholt requesting that his division be removed from the Mihalik’s Unit. Almost all of the reasons in support of his request referred to Mihalik’s incompetence or dishonesty. Many of them repeated items from his formal complaint. He did not refer to his formal complaint, however, nor did the memorandum suggest the need for any discipline. A few hours after receiving the memorandum, Atterholt summoned Ogden to his office and gave him an opportunity to resign or be fired. Ogden resigned -- but then sued the Department, Atterholt, and Mihalik. He claimed a violation of his First Amendment rights under § 1983. Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Ogden appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Williams, Sykes, and Tinder affirmed. The only First Amendment issue addressed by the Court was whether Ogden's speech was constitutionally protected. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti, the Court held that it was not. Garcetti tells us that public employees' speech is not constitutionally protected when the statements are made "pursuant to their official duties." Here, the Court concluded that the memorandum was simply a request for departmental reorganization – a request which fell squarely within the scope of his official duties. Although many of the reasons given alleged incompetence and dishonesty on the part of his superior, they were all made in support of this effort to convince Atterholt of the need to reorganize.

Tags: Opinion by Sykes, Garcetti, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Labor & Employment, Protected Speech, Section 1983

The Isolated Acts Of One Member Of A Multi-Member Board Do Not Support Monell Liability

Posted on May 20, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Bauer, Monell, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Deliberate Indifference, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1983

Seven to Ten Month Gap Between Allegedly Discriminatory Statements And An Adverse Job Action Is Too Long To Support An Inference Of Discrimination

Posted on May 7, 2010 by Michael Rigney

EGONMWAN v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (April 22, 2010)

Iyare Egonmwan was a black male jail guard at the Cook County Jail. In 2001, he was transferred into the women's division. The following year, the female superintendent of the division disciplined him for conduct that had occurred prior to his transfer. Several days later, Egonmwan accused the superintendent of sexual harassment. The claim was investigated and determined to be unfounded. In 2003, during a general investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct between guards and prisoners, a female detainee informed the investigators that she and at least one other prisoner had had a sexual encounter with Egonmwan. Although Egonmwan was acquitted of criminal charges in 2004, an administrative hearing board terminated his employment in January of 2005 for violation of institutional rules. Egonmwan brought suit against, among others, Cook County and the Sheriff's Department. He alleged § 1981 race discrimination and § 1983 gender and race discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Egonmwan appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first affirmed the summary judgment on the gender discrimination claim. Egonmwan proceeded under the direct method but presented only a few isolated remarks by the women's division superintendent. The Court noted that isolated remarks may be sufficient to establish a discriminatory motive, but they must be made by the decision-maker, at the time of the decision, and regarding the decision. Here, the Court doubted (but did not decide) that the superintendent could be considered the decision-maker. It upheld the summary judgment because of the seven to ten month lag between the remarks and the action and the fact that the remarks did not refer to Egonmwan's termination. With respect to the race discrimination claim, the Court concluded that Egonmwan was unable to show that similarly situated non-blacks were treated more favorably or that the defendants' reasons for his termination were not legitimate.

Tags: Opinion by Evans, Gender Discrimination, Labor & Employment, Pretext, Race Discrimination, Section 1981, Section 1983, Similarly Situated

De-deputization And Transfer Do Not Amount To Constructive Discharge

Posted on May 6, 2010 by Michael Rigney

SWEARNIGEN-EL v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (April 22, 2010)

Swearnigen-El was a black male guard in the women's division at the Cook County Jail. He had a run-in with the head of the division, who wanted the correctional staff in the women's division to be comprised totally of women. Swearnigen-El thought that belief was discriminatory and he reported his concerns to other supervisors. Shortly thereafter, Swearnigen-El found himself in trouble when a female prisoner's allegations that male guards were engaged in sexual activity with female prisoners launched an investigation. The Sheriff's Police conducted the initial investigation, followed by an investigation by the State's Attorney’s office. Several prisoners reported that Swearnigen-El was having sex with a female prisoner. The prisoner herself admitted the activity. Swearnigen-El was de-deputized and transferred for violating a General Order that forbids "activities unbecoming" an employee. He was later charged with sexual misconduct and suspended with pay. Before he had a termination hearing with the merit board, Swearnigen-El resigned. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he filed a complaint alleging gender discrimination, race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all other claims. Swearnigen-El appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first upheld summary judgment on all gender and race discrimination claims because there was no adverse employment action. Swearnigen-El was de-deputized and transferred after a internal investigation demonstrated evidence of misconduct. His pay was not affected and there was no evidence that the conditions were intolerable. The Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find a constructive discharge under those circumstances. Alternatively, the Court found that Swearnigen-El a) failed to establish sufficient evidence of race or gender discrimination to create a triable issue, and b) was not meeting his legitimate job expectations. Next, the Court considered the First Amendment retaliation claim. The principal speech at issue was Swearnigen-El's disagreement with his superior regarding the staffing of the women's division and his subsequent complaints to other officials that her actions constituted discrimination. The Court concluded that the speech was not protected -- Swearnigen-El was speaking not "as a citizen" but as a public employee under Garcetti. Again, the Court came to the alternative conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the defendants' actions pretextual. On the claim of malicious prosecution, the Court found sufficient evidence of misconduct after the investigation to establish probable cause. Since the absence of probable cause is an element of a malicious prosecution claim, Swearnigen-El's claim must fail. Finally, the Court agreed that there was no "outrageous" conduct that would amount to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and upheld the district court's dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim on the ground that Swearnigen-El failed to include it in his EEOC charge.

Tags: Opinion by Evans, Garcetti, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Constructive Discharge, EEOC, First Amendment, Gender Discrimination, Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Labor & Employment, Malicious Prosecution, Probable Cause, Protected Speech, Race Discrimination, Retaliation, Section 1981, Section 1983, Title VII

A Procedural Due Process Claim Based On The Random Conduct Of A State Actor Must Allege That Post-Deprivation Remedies Are Inadequate

Posted on April 21, 2010 by Michael Rigney

LEAVELL v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (April 6, 2010)

Eva Leavell and her family own or lease hundreds of oil wells in southern Illinois. Most of the permits are in Ms. Leavell’s name -- but at least one is in the name of her husband, Daniel. Beginning in the year 2000 and continuing for several years, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources conducted a number of hearings to identify abandoned wells that should be plugged. The proceedings resulted in several disputes between the Department and Ms. Leavell, including a state court lawsuit. In 2008, the Department held a similar hearing concerning a well for which Daniel was the permittee. The Department sent a certified letter to Daniel -- but Daniel had already died. No representative was notified and the hearing proceeded. The Department ordered the well plugged. The estate has not challenged that ruling in any administrative or judicial proceeding. Ms. Leavell instead brought a lawsuit as administratrix of his estate, alleging that the Department violated Daniel's procedural due process rights in failing to provide sufficient notice of the 2008 hearing. The district court dismissed on the grounds of issue preclusion, apparently believing that the complaint referred to the same conduct that had already been litigated in state court with respect to the wells for which Ms. Leavell was the permittee. The court also denied Ms. Leavell's motion to reconsider. The court stated that the assertion that Daniel was the permit holder was raised for the first time in the motion to reconsider. Ms. Leavell appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Ripple and Rovner and District Judge St. Eve affirmed. The Court noted that, after concessions in the briefs and oral argument, the only issue on appeal was whether Leavell stated a due process claim and, if not, whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Any procedural due process inquiry requires the identification of the property interest at issue and the necessary process due in connection with the deprivation of that interest. The Court distinguished between procedural due process claims based on established state procedure and those based on the random and unauthorized acts of state actors. With respect to the former, post-deprivation procedures are not necessarily adequate. In those cases, a pre-deprivation hearing may be required. With respect to the latter, however, pre-deprivation hearings are usually impossible because of the inability to predict when the random acts will occur. There, procedural due process requirements are satisfied if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Leavell does not assert that the state lacks an adequate notification procedure. Rather, she alleges that a Department employee failed to implement an existing procedure for notifying a permittee of a hearing. Therefore, only a post-deprivation remedy is required. Since she conceded that there are state remedies available and that she has not taken advantage of them, her claim must fail. With respect to whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice, the Court distinguished between dismissals for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or failure to satisfy a condition precedent and the case before it. Here, Leavell's failure to take advantage of an adequate state court remedy is a failure to allege a necessary element of the cause of action. The claim should be dismissed with prejudice.

Tags: Opinion by Ripple, Adequate State Process, Constitutional Law, Procedural Due Process, Section 1983

Police Use Of Teargas And Flash Bang Devices Was A "Clearly Established" Excessive Use Of Force In 2005

Posted on April 20, 2010 by Michael Rigney

ESTATE OF ESCOBEDO v. BENDER (April 5, 2010)

At 4:24 on a summer morning in 2005, Rudy Escobedo called 911 and told the dispatcher that he was high on cocaine, armed, and suicidal. According to the complaint filed by his estate, the Fort Wayne Police grossly mishandled the situation. It alleges that, over the succeeding five hours, the police: a) engaged the Crisis Response Team and the Emergency Response Team, b) did not follow normal communication protocol, c) never complied with Escobedo's request to have his psychologist at the scene, d) decided to use teargas to force Escobedo from his apartment, e) actually used twelve times the incapacitating concentration of teargas, f) were forced to cut off communication with Escobedo because of the strength of the teargas and the location of the officer in communication with him, g) broke down his apartment door and threw in more teargas and a flash bang grenade, h) broke down the door to his bedroom and threw in more grenades, and i) shot and killed him. Escobedo never threatened anyone other than himself. Escobedo 's estate filed a complaint pursuant to § 1983, alleging that the use of the teargas and flash bang grenades constituted excessive force. On the individual officers' motion for summary judgment, the district court granted in part and denied in part. Its denial of the officers’ summary judgment motion on the excessive force claim was based on the courts' ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. The individual officers appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Manion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Kanne and District Judge Kendall affirmed. The Court noted that the only issue before it was whether the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, the officers limited their appeal to the second prong of the Saucier qualified immunity test -- whether the law was clearly established at the time of the events in question that the use of teargas and flash bang grenades under the circumstances presented constituted excessive force. The estate has the burden of meeting the "clearly established" test but can do so in one of two ways: either by presenting a closely analogous case or by establishing that the conduct is so obviously a violation of constitutional rights that any reasonable0 officer would know. Although the Court briefly discussed the latter test, they declined to apply it because of its conclusions with respect to closely analogous case law. The Court addressed the case law with respect to teargas and flash bang grenades separately. With respect to teargas, the Court found controlling precedent and a clear trend in other circuits that the use of teargas is unreasonable when: a) the target is an individual, b) the individual poses no actual threat, c) there are no hostages, d) the individual has not committed a crime and is not attempting to flee, e) the individual, though suicidal, is not homicidal, and f) the individual suffers some incapacity. The Court found those elements present here. With respect to flash bang grenades, the Court noted that it had earlier found the use of such devices reasonable in Molina. It distinguished Molina, however, on the grounds that the officers there had serious personal safety concerns. It then cited dicta from other circuit cases which suggests that the use of the devices might not be reasonable if used in close proximity to a suspect or when the suspect is not dangerous. Although recognizing the relative dearth of precedent in the area and the lack of any precise guidance, the Court concluded that the holdings and dicta in the cases that do exist clearly show that the use of the device in the circumstances of this case is unreasonable.

Judge Manion concurred in part and dissented in part. With respect to the teargas, he agreed with the result although he would have reached it under the patently obvious violation route rather than the closely analogous case law route. He disagreed, however with the Court's conclusion on the use of flash bang devices. Judge Manion criticized the majority's treatment of Molina. Although he agreed that the cases were distinguishable, he considers Molina the leading authority in the circuit on the issue and should not have been limited to its facts in favor of dicta from other cases. Even the dicta in the other cases, he believed, did not come close to meeting the "clearly established" standard.

Tags: Opinion By Kendall, Opinion By Manion (Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part), Saucier, Civil Rights, Clearly Established Law, Constitutional Law, Excessive Force, Qualified Immunity, Section 1983

Bank's Misapplication Of State Law Is Not Action Taken "Under Color Of State Law" For § 1983 Purposes

Posted on April 16, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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."

Tags: Opinion by Manion, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1983

Prosecutor's Remarks, Although Improper, Did Not Deny A Full And Fair Hearing

Posted on April 14, 2010 by Michael Rigney

BROWN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (March 30, 2010)

Chicago police officers Blackman and Long were on a plain-clothes detail in a Chicago neighborhood when they observed what they believed was an illegal drug transaction. During their pursuit of the suspects, Blackman came across Arthur Brown. According to Blackman, Brown was holding a gun. When he failed to follow the officer's orders to drop it, Blackman shot him several times. According to Brown and another witness, he did not have a gun. Instead, Brown claims that Blackman shot him in the back and then planted a gun in his hand. Brown was charged and convicted of several counts of aggravated assault, aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, and unlawful possession of a weapon. His conviction was affirmed. Nevertheless, Brown brought a § 1983 complaint against Blackman, alleging that Blackman's conduct amounted to the excessive use of force in violation of the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment to Blackman, concluding that the complaint was barred by collateral estoppel. Brown appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Tinder affirmed. The Court noted that Brown conceded that the elements of collateral estoppel existed in the case. Instead, he argued that two exceptions to the rule applied: that he was denied a fair hearing and that new evidence made the rule’s application unfair. The Court agreed that Brown's exceptions to the application of collateral estoppel were recognized in Illinois. However, the Court rejected their application in this case. First, with respect to the fair hearing exception, the Court concluded that the two evidentiary issue rulings at his criminal trial did not deny Brown a fair hearing. The third ground on which he based his “fair hearing” argument was the accusation by the prosecutor that Brown and his attorney made up a theory of conspiracy by police officers in order to “cash in” in a civil action against the City. The state appellate court found the remarks improper but did not reverse the conviction. Likewise, the Court found that the remarks, though improper, did not amount to the deprivation of a fair hearing. Second, with respect to the new evidence exception, the Court concluded that any discrepancy between a witness’ testimony in Brown's criminal trial and his deposition testimony in the § 1983 case was not significant enough to create the type of injustice that would bar the application of collateral estoppel.

Tags: Opinion by Manion, Civil Rights, Collateral Estoppel, Constitutional Law, Evidence, Full And Fair Hearing, New Evidence, Section 1983

School Principal Is Not Required To Conduct An Investigation Before He Swears Out A Criminal Complaint

Posted on March 31, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion By Hamilton, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Probable Cause, Section 1983, Seizure

Summons and Prosecution Without Probable Cause Does Not Violate The Constitution

Posted on March 30, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Bauer, Constitutional Law, Fourteenth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Malicious Prosecution, Probable Cause, Section 1983

Evidence That Supports An Inference Of Principal's Intentional Discrimination Is Sufficient To Establish A Constitutional Violation And Defeat Qualified Immunity

Posted on March 26, 2010 by Michael Rigney

SANDRA T.E. v. GRINDLE (March 17, 2010)

Three female elementary school classmates at Pershing Elementary School attended a seminar on "inappropriate touching" at their school in May of 2001. After the seminar, they wrote a short letter to the presenter stating that they were uncomfortable with the conduct of their band teacher. The presenter shared the note with Karen Grindle, Pershing's principal. Although Grindle met with the band teacher, the students, some parents, and the school's social worker, the accounts of their meetings varied. The allegations are that Grindle downplayed the significance and the seriousness of the accusations. Additional incidents surfaced in January and April of the following year. Again, Grindle is alleged to have minimized the significance of the incidents. One of the students who wrote the original letter in 2001 revealed to her mother, in 2005, her version of what happened. Her mother informed the police, a criminal investigation was launched, other victims came forward, and the band teacher pleaded guilty to multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Several of the children and their parents filed an action pursuant to section 1983, alleging a violation of their equal protection and substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment on the section 1983 claim to all defendants except Grindle and the band teacher. Grindle appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Hamilton affirmed. The basis of Grindle's appeal is her claim to qualified immunity. The Court recited the familiar two-part test: whether a constitutional right was violated, and whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct. With respect to the equal protection claim, the Court concluded that well-developed law at the time of Grindle's conduct held that a supervisor could be liable for deliberately ignoring an equal protection violation of her subordinate. In addition, the sexual harassment by the subordinate was a well-established equal protection violation. The Court concluded that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that Grindle intentionally discriminated against the girls to withstand summary judgment. With respect to the substantive due process claim, Grindle argued that she had no duty to protect the students from the abuse at the hands of the band teacher. The Court agreed that state officials do not generally have an obligation to protect citizens from violence, but noted the "special relationship" exception to that rule. Although the Court agreed that it had once rejected the "special relationship" theory in the student context, it also noted that the Third Circuit held otherwise in Stoneking. The Stoneking decision has been recognized in the circuit as one that is viable and, in fact, has been followed on several occasions in the district courts of the circuit. The Court concluded that a reasonable elementary school principal should have concluded that she could be liable for ignoring, or even covering up, a teacher's sexual abuse of a student. Finally, the Court noted that the plaintiffs allege that Grindle's own actions establish the constitutional violation, and not just her mere failure to act or prevent. Thus, they meet the test of Iqbal.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Equal Protection, Qualified Immunity, Section 1983, Substantive Due Process

Acceptance of Offer of Judgment From One Defendant Did Not Moot Other Claims

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Tinder, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Deliberate Indifference, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Jurisdiction, Mootness, Offer Of Judgment, Section 1983

Investigator Who Withholds Innocent Explanation Entitled To Qualified Immunity Where It Was Not Material To Probable Cause

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Michael Rigney

WHITLOCK v. BROWN (February 24, 2010)

The Whitlocks were camping with their daughter at the Indiana Dunes State Park in July of 2005. They came across some personal property at what appeared to be a deserted camp site. They put the items in their vehicle and told a neighboring camper that they would turn it in to park rangers. Instead of turning it in immediately, however, they left the park and went shopping. Upon their return, they left a voicemail for the property owner (having obtained his number from information found in the property) advising him that they had his property and were going to leave it with the park ranger. The owner of the property had already reported it missing and park authorities were investigating. When the Whitlocks eventually turned in the property, they were accused of theft. The investigation confirmed the Whitlocks' explanation. State investigator Brown prepared a case report and an "Affidavit for Probable Clause." He sent the affidavit to the local county prosecutor's office, and there is a dispute over whether he attached his case report to it. The Whitlocks were charged with conversion and an arrest warrant was issued. When they were stopped for a traffic violation a month later, they were arrested and held in jail for four days before the prosecutor dropped the charges. The Whitlocks sued Brown under § 1983, specifically alleging that he withheld their explanation for why they held the property for so long from his case report or application for a warrant. The district court concluded that Brown did violate their Fourth Amendment rights by withholding the exculpatory information but also concluded that he was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause to arrest the Whitlocks existed. The Whitlocks appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Sykes and District Judge Dow affirmed. Qualified immunity, stated the Court, involves two inquiries: whether there is a constitutional violation and whether a reasonable officer, considering clearly established law, would have known his actions were unconstitutional. Here, the claim is that Brown intentionally or recklessly withheld exculpatory information from the prosecutor, which could overcome the general presumption of the validity of the warrant. The information omitted, however, must be material to the existence of probable cause. The Court first addressed the alleged withholding of the case report itself. The district court had concluded that Brown withheld the report, inferring so from its absence from the prosecutor's file. The Court disagreed. Brown testified that he had submitted the case report. Although self-serving, the testimony was not speculation and was based on Brown's personal knowledge. In contrast, the Whitlocks presented no evidence or reasonable inference that the report was not sent. Although therefore concluding that the report itself was not withheld, the Court also considered an omission in the report -- Brown's failure to include the Whitlock's innocent explanation for why they did not turn in the property immediately. The Court turned to the materiality of that missing information. The statute upon which the warrant was based prohibits "unauthorized control over property" of another. It does not require an intent to permanently deprive. Although the Court hypothesized a situation in which the explanation could be material under a theory of implied consent from the owner of lost property, it found no such theory recognized under Indiana law. The Court concluded that a reasonable officer would not have known if the innocent explanation was material to probable cause and that Brown was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Tags: Opinion by Sykes, Civil Rights, Clearly Established Law, Constitutional Law, Evidence, Fourth Amendment, Inference, Materiality, Probable Cause, Qualified Immunity, Section 1983

Government Employee Who Serves "At The Pleasure" Has No Property Interest In Employment

Posted on February 26, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Bauer, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Labor & Employment, Liberty Interest, Property Interest, Section 1983

District Court Improperly Excluded Expert Medical Testimony

Posted on February 24, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Williams, Monell, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Deliberate Indifference, Evidence, Expert Testimony, Proximate Cause, Section 1983

Union Grievance Is Not Protected Speech When It Concerns a Matter of Purely Private Interest

Posted on February 9, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Manion, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Garcetti, Protected Speech, Retaliation, Section 1983, Union Grievance

"Deliberate Indifference" Requires Actual Knowledge Of Serious Medical Condition

Posted on February 4, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Deliberate Indifference, Eighth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1983

Sheriff's Endorsement Of Religious Group Violates First Amendment

Posted on January 28, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Williams, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Establishment Clause, First Amendment, Forum, Free Exercise Clause, Section 1983

First Amendment Does Not Require State Park To Display Asbestos Warning Pamphlet

Posted on January 7, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Posner, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Public Forum, Section 1983

Patient's Refusal To Consent To Psychiatric Examination Does Not Insulate Physician From Malpractice Liability

Posted on January 5, 2010 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion By Lawrence, Opinion By Sykes (Dissenting Opinion), Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Duty, Jurisdiction, Medical Malpractice, Section 1983, Tort

Police Officer's Errors In A Warrant Request Were Not Intentional False Statements or A Reckless Disregard For The Truth

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Tinder, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Fourth Amendment, Probable Cause, Section 1983, Unlawful Arrest, Unreasonable Search

Case Remanded For Hearing When Evidence Does Not Support Rationale For Adult Business Regulation

Posted on December 21, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Easterbrook, Adult Businesses, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Section 1983, Zoning

The Injury Suffered By A Citizen Mistakenly Arrested On An Unpaid Parking Ticket Warrant Is Too Remote To Satisfy "Zone of Interests" Standing

Posted on December 17, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Posner, Constitutional Law, Section 1983, Standing, Unlawful Arrest, Zone Of Interest Standing

Evidence Of Discriminatory Intent Based On First-Hand Experience, Even If Uncorroborated And Self-Serving, Is Enough To Get A Discrimination Claim To The Jury When It Is Coupled With An Adverse Job Action

Posted on December 17, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Cudahy, CRA, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Labor & Employment, National Origin Discrimination, Retaliatory Discharge, Section 1983, Title VII

Municipal Liability Cannot Be Based On Retaliatory Firing By Department Head Who Did Not Have Final Policymaking Authority

Posted on December 15, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Tinder, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Labor & Employment, Monell, Municipal Liability, Retaliation, Section 1983

Jail Guards' Willingness to Defy "Code of Silence" and Report Coworker Abuse of Inmates Is Not Constitutionally Protected Speech Under Garcetti

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Easterbrook, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Garcetti, Prior Restraint, Section 1983

Statute of Limitations For A Section 1983 Conspiracy To Prosecute Claim Begins To Run On The Date Of Indictment, Not The Date Of Acquittal

Posted on December 3, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Wood, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Pleadings, Section 1983, Statute of Limitations

A Section 1983 Claim Of Unlawful Search Borrows Its Survivability From The State False Imprisonment Tort, Not Trespass

Posted on November 20, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Kanne, Constitutional Law, False Arrest, Fourth Amendment, Section 1983, Survivability, Unlawful Search

Once A Police Officer Has Probable Cause To Believe An Offense Has Been Committed, He Has No Obligation To Continue His Investigation

Posted on November 17, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion per curiam, Civil Rights, False Arrest, Fourth Amendment, Probable Cause, Section 1983

Police Officer Who Restrained Citizens With A Submachine Gun When There Was No Threat To His Safety, No Indication Of Weapons And No Resistance Is Not Entitled To Qualified Immunity

Posted on November 9, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Wood, Constitutional Law, Excessive Force, Fourth Amendment, Qualified Immunity, Section 1983

Plaintiff Must Identify A Specific City Custom Or Practice That Deprived Him Of His Constitutional Rights In Order To Survive Summary Judgment

Posted on November 6, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Bauer, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Municipal Liability, Section 1983

Village Employee's Speech Of Public Importance Becomes Unprotected Private Speech Only When It Is Solely Motivated By The Employee's Personal Interest

Posted on November 5, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Williams, Constitutional Law, Evidence, First Amendment, Illinois Tort Immunity Act, Labor & Employment, Retaliation, Section 1983

City Cannot Escape Its Due Process Obligations to Employee Occupying State-Protected Job By Simply Transferring Her Into An Unprotected Job Before Firing Her

Posted on November 2, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Rovner, Americans With Disabilities Act, Civil Service, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Labor & Employment, Section 1983

County's Release Of A Mentally Ill Man, After Confimenent Without Medication, Was Not The Proximate Cause Of His Later Killing Of Another

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Bauer, Civil Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, Proximate Cause, Section 1983

Unilateral Actions Of Labor Union Representing City Police Officers, Without City Involvement, Does Not Satisfy State Action Requirement Of A Section 1983 Claim

Posted on September 22, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Rovner, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Labor & Employment, Section 1983, State Action, Union

Court Ordered Joinder, Not Dismissal, Is The Proper Remedy, When A § 1983 Case Against A Sheriff Fails To Name The County As A Required Party

Posted on September 9, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Wood, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Indispensable Party, Joinder, Monell, Section 1983, Waiver

A Valid Warrant To Search A Single-Family Residence Does Not Support The Continued Execution Of The Search Once The Officers Are Aware That The Building Is A Multiple-Unit Building

Posted on September 8, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Evans, Concurring Opinion By Rovner, Constitutional Law, Fourth Amendment, Section 1983, Unlawful Search, Unreasonable Search, Warrant

A Lawful Arrest On An Outstanding Warrant Does Not Revive A False Arrest Claim Based On An Earlier Unlawful Arrest, Even If The Unlawful Arrest Led To The Issuance Of The Warrant

Posted on September 1, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Civil Rights, False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Section 1983

State Agency's Use Of A Review Panel For Disciplinary Decisions Does Not Give An At-Will Employee A Constitutionally-Protected Property Interest In Continued Employment

Posted on July 31, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Bauer, Constitutional Law, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Labor & Employment, Section 1983

Excessive Force Claim Fails When Officers Had A Reasonable Belief That Plaintiff Posed A Threat To The Safety Of Those Around Him

Posted on July 20, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Flaum, Constitutional Law, Fourth Amendment, Section 1983, Unreasonable Force

Upon Dismissal of Federal Claims, State Law Claims Were Properly Dismissed Because They Were Meritless

Posted on May 15, 2009 by Michael Rigney

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.

Tags: Opinion by Sykes, Abuse of Process, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Malicious Prosecution, Section 1983, Supplemental Jurisdiction

In Their Opinion
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

New York
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0002
Phone (212) 808-7800
Fax (212) 808-7897
Alt Fax (212) 808-7898

Chicago
333 West Wacker Drive
26th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone (312) 857-7070
Fax (312) 857-7095

Washington, DC
Washington Harbour, Suite 400
3050 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007-5108
Phone (202) 342-8400
Fax (202) 342-8451

Stamford
400 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Phone (203) 324-1400
Fax (203) 327-2669

Parsippany
200 Kimball Drive
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Phone (973) 503-5900
Fax (973) 503-5950

Brussels
106 Avenue Louise
Brussels, 1050
Belgium
Phone (32)(2) 646-1110
Fax (32)(2) 640-0589

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals commentary from Chicago lawyer & attorney Michael E. Rigney of Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm, offering insights and analysis related to 7th Circuit Court opinions and Illinois federal courts.