Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Devbrow, an Indiana prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 asserting that prison officials denied him access to the courts by confiscating and destroying his legal papers in retaliation for a prior lawsuit (concerning medical care) he filed. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that Devbrow failed to show that prison officials actually destroyed his legal documents or took his papers for retaliatory reasons. The court noted testimony that Devbrow had created a fire hazard by stacking excess property by his bed, that prison officials had allowed him to keep some legal materials by his bed, that Devbrow stored the rest of them, and that the officials were unaware of Devbrow’s pending litigation. The court further reasoned that Devbrow did not suffer any actual injury from the alleged actions: Devbrow’s medical indifference suit had been terminated not on the merits, but on grounds of untimeliness and that Devbrow had not submitted any admissible evidence to discredit the officers’ explanation that they had removed his property from the dorm room because it was a fire hazard. View "Devbrow v. Gallego" on Justia Law

A 1980 fire in a Chicago apartment building killed 10 children. Kidd became a suspect following his arrest on unrelated charges. At his 1987 trial on charges of arson and 10 counts of murder, Strunck, a public defender, represented him. Kidd was convicted and sentenced to death. In 1992, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. At his new trial, Kidd waived assistance of counsel and represented himself, despite the judge’s repeated warnings and advice. Kidd expressed dissatisfaction with the public defender and requested that Dan Webb or Jenner & Block represent him. Kidd was unable to find private counsel. Strunck represented him at the penalty phase and presented evidence that Kidd was borderline mentally retarded. Kidd was convicted again and is serving a life sentence. In unsuccessful state postconviction proceedings, before the same judge who presided over his trial, Kidd argued that the court should have ordered a formal competency hearing because Kidd was taking psychotropic drugs under medical direction and that his waiver of counsel was not voluntary. The state denied his habeas petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Sixth Amendment arguments. View "Kidd v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Steidl and Whitlock were convicted of 1987 murders, largely based on testimony by two supposed eyewitnesses. Long after the convictions, an investigation revealed that much of the testimony was perjured and that exculpatory evidence had been withheld. The revelations led to the release of the men and dismissal of all charges. Steidl had spent almost 17 years in prison; Whitlock had spent close to 21 years. They sued. By 2013, both had settled with all defendants. Because the defendants were public officials and public entities, disputes arose over responsibility for defense costs. National Casualty sought a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for the defense of former State’s Attorney, McFatridge, or Edgar County, agreeing to pay their costs under a reservation of rights until the issue was resolved. The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of National Casualty. In another case McFatridge sought a state court order that the Illinois Attorney General approve his reasonable expenses and fees; the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the claim. In a third case, National Casualty sought a declaratory judgment that another insurer was liable for costs it had advanced. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the other company is liable. It would be inequitable for that company to benefit from National’s attempt to do the right thing, especially since it did not do the right thing and contribute to the defense costs under a reservation of rights. View "Nat'l Cas. Co. v. White Mountains Reinsurance Co." on Justia Law

Foster was charged with distributing crack cocaine and a separate conspiracy-to-distribute charge. Against the advice of appointed counsel, Kupsis, Foster rejected two proposed plea agreements, each of which would have resulted in a sentence of about 20 years imprisonment. Foster faced a possibility of a life sentence, if convicted of the conspiracy charge. The government filed an information, pursuant to 21 U.S.C 851, 10 days before trial, stating that Foster had a prior felony drug conviction, which increased the mandatory minimum penalty on each count from 10 to 20 years. Kupsis had not anticipated the information and had not advised Foster that it was a possibility. After receiving notice of the information, Kupsis suggested to Foster that they attempt to revive one of the earlier proposed plea agreements. Foster refused. Kupsis successfully defended Foster against the conspiracy charge, but he was convicted on the distribution count and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. Foster filed a Section 2255 motion, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court held that Foster could not establish that he was prejudiced by Kupsis’ representation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Foster v. United States" on Justia Law

An Illinois inmate sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that a nurse practitioner and a correctional counselor were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition, hypertension (high blood pressure). He had been diagnosed in 2007 at age 22 and did not receive his prescribed medication for a three-week period in 2009. The district judge dismissed, reasoning that the nurse practitioner did not know that plaintiff was not receiving his medication and the correctional counselor, not a member of the prison’s medical staff, assumed the medical staff would deal with it. The Seventh Circuit affirmed after criticizing the failure, by the court and lawyers, to use scientific resources to determine the effect on the plaintiff’s health of a temporary interruption in the medication. “The legal profession must get over its fear and loathing of science.” The court also noted “that this plainly meritless suit was filed … more than four years ago. … A stronger judicial hand on the tiller could have saved a good deal of time, effort, and paper.” View "Jackson v. Pollion" on Justia Law

Williams was returning home from work late at night. He smelled smoke, saw that his neighbor’s house was on fire, and went to the porch of the burning home to rouse anyone who might be inside. Chicago police officers O’Brien and Byrne also spotted the smoke and found Williams on the porch. They arrested him on suspicion of arson. A prosecutor declined to file arson charges that night. Officers O’Brien and Byrne then charged Williams with criminal trespass, but that charge was dismissed. Williams brought suit against O’Brien and Byrne under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging false arrest in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and against the officers and the City of Chicago under state law for malicious prosecution on the trespass charge. The district court granted the defendants’ summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded for trial. Whether there was even arguable probable cause to arrest and charge Williams depends on disputed issues of fact. View "Williams v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Lavalais is the only black police officer employed by the Village of Melrose Park, which has about 75 officers. He has been a Melrose Park officer for more than 20 years. In 2010, Lavalais filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging race discrimination. He filed a second charge in January 2011, alleging that he was disciplined for filing the first charge. In early February 2011, Lavalais was promoted to sergeant and placed on the midnight shift. More than a year later, he was denied a requested a change of assignment from the midnight shift, and again filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC issued a right‐to‐sue letter. The district court dismissed his claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit vacated dismissal of the discrimination claims, but affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claims. View "Lavalais v. Vill. of Melrose Park" on Justia Law

Officers responded to reports of gunfire in a Chicago public housing complex. Two people stated that “gangbangers” were running guns and drugs into the building and pointed to apartment 501. No one answered when they knocked, so the officers entered the apartment with guns drawn. They found Perry and ordered him to get down against the wall, then searched the apartment, finding chunks of crack cocaine, clear Ziploc bags, and razor blades in a bedroom. Perry ran for the door, knocking an officer down. Perry claimed that he fled because the officers started punching him. Perry ran down to the third floor. Officer Keithley followed him, gun drawn, while Watts secured the apartment. Keithley testified that Perry popped out and rushed him, grabbed him, and tried to grab his gun. Keithley said he tried to punch Perry and his gun went off, striking Keithley in the arm. Perry again attempted to escape, knocking Keithley off-balance. Keithley shot at Perry while falling; one bullet struck Perry in the thigh, and another struck him in the back. Perry denied reaching for Keithley’s gun. Perry was acquitted of attempted murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and disarming a peace officer. Perry filed civil rights claims against the officers and the city. A jury rejected his claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims of evidentiary errors. View "Perry v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Johnson was rejected for four promotions and was terminated in 2004, when her employer, General Board learned that Johnson had been recording conversations with co-workers without their consent. Johnson had filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2001 and in 2003 and, after her termination, filed a charge, claiming sexual harassment, based on a video shown by a team leader, featuring male nudity. Johnson sued General Board, alleging race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 981, and sexual harassment in violation of Title VII. Johnson testified that a hiring official told her that her tendency to complain about discrimination might have contributed to the decision not to promote her. Most of Johnson’s claims were dismissed. Two remaining claims for retaliation were tried; a jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and to jury instructions. The district court failed to comply with FRCP 51(b), which requires the court to decide the content of final jury instructions and give the parties an opportunity to object before instructions and final arguments are delivered; the procedural error was ultimately harmless. View "Johnson v. Gen. Bd. of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church" on Justia Law

In 2001 a burglar set fire to Frankton High School, causing millions of dollars in damages. According to the plaintiff, an officer coerced one of the suspects and others to accuse the plaintiff. The plaintiff was convicted of arson, burglary, and theft. He obtained post-conviction relief and was released from prison in 2006, after proving that a key witness had lied. In 2007 a retrial was scheduled. On advice of counsel, plaintiff deferred filing a civil rights suit pending retrial, but the trial kept getting rescheduled until charges were dismissed in 2010. In 2011, the plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming malicious prosecution, due process, violations, and other torts, by Indiana police officers, the town that employed them, and the sheriff. The district judge dismissed the claim as untimely and held that Indiana law provides an adequate remedy for malicious prosecution, barring recourse to section 1983. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that Indiana law does not provide an adequate remedy. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants intimidated him into delaying filing a civil suit until the criminal proceeding ended. If that is true, the limitations period did not start to run until then, so that his November 2011 filing was within the limitations period. View "Julian v. Hanna" on Justia Law