Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Since 2004, Poullard, an African-American man, has worked at the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center as a training specialist. He received a promotion to the GS‐11 pay grade in 2006, but since then, has received neither a permanent promotion nor a raise. He filed suit, alleging that the refusal to promote him or increase his salary constituted discrimination based on sex and race and that he was subjected to unlawful retaliation and a hostile work environment based on the same lack of pay and recognition, and other incidents. The court rejected the claims on summary judgment, concluding that some claims were time‐barred based on Poullard's failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies under 29 C.F.R. 1614.105(a). On the timely claims, the court held that Poullard had not suffered an adverse employment action and that a reasonable jury could not find that the alleged harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While it appears that Poullard may not have been managed well or fairly, three arguably race‐tinged remarks, even in combination with the pay disparity and a letter of admonishment, did not show that the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. View "Poullard v. McDonald" on Justia Law

From 2008-2010, the FBI and Chicago Police Department conducted a narcotics investigation, “Operation Blue Knight.” As the operation was wrapping up, Officer O’Donnell applied for dozens of arrest warrants, including one for White. Other officers had observed White and his brother sell heroin to an informant. The observations were in a more comprehensive report (NAGIS) that O’Donnell used as the basis for his arrest warrant application. White was arrested, but the charge was dropped. He then brought a civil rights lawsuit alleging that O’Donnell’s actions and a city policy violated his Fourth Amendment rights. White’s claims are based on a theory that O’Donnell failed to present the judge who issued the warrant enough information to establish probable cause for the arrest. The district court dismissed the claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. O’Donnell’s written application for an arrest warrant, supported by his oral testimony about the NAGIS report of the surveillance of the drug deal, provided probable cause for the warrant. Probable cause also establishes that White did not suffer a constitutional injury, which was a necessary element of his “Monell claim” against the city. View "White v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Fowler pleaded guilty in Indiana to unlawful possession of a firearm by a “serious violent felon” who was also a habitual offender. The judge sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment for the possession offense and 15 extra based on his criminal history. While his case was on appeal, the Supreme Court of Indiana held (Mills) that a prior conviction used to establish “serious violent felon” status cannot also be used to establish habitual offender status. Fowler’s appellate lawyer did not raise Mills before the appellate court, which affirmed his sentence. On collateral review, the same court held that Fowler’s plea bargain waived reliance on the approach that Mills adopted. Fowler then sought federal relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied this petition, relying on the state judiciary’s conclusion that Fowler had waived the benefit of Mills. The Seventh Circuit vacated, noting that Judge Magnus-Stinson, who denied Fowler’s federal collateral attack, had also sentenced Fowler during her time on the state’s bench; 28 U.S.C. 455(a) requires the case to be heard by a different federal judge. Section 2254 is designed to ensure that a fresh pair of eyes looks at the matter, from a different perspective. View "Robertson v. Butts" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty in 2011 to aiding and abetting marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C.1546(a), and was sentenced to three years in prison. Marriage fraud is an aggravated felony if the defendant is sentenced to at least 12 months in prison, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(P); a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum, or naturalization. The defendant unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his plea, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not warned that pleading guilty would be virtually certain to result in his deportation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the motion, noting that one of the defense attorneys, an immigration specialist, had explained a possible, but barely viable, defense to the deportation that would inevitably follow his conviction, so the defendant had “full knowledge of the great risk that he faced of deportation,” and “actively strategized with his attorneys.” The court noted that the defendant, currently a fugitive, avoided conviction for mortgage fraud by pleading guilty to marriage fraud. He would have been likely to receive a longer prison sentence if convicted after a trial. View "United States v. Chezan" on Justia Law

Neita formerly owned and operated a dog-grooming business and rescue shelter. In 2012, he went to Chicago’s Department of Animal Care and Control to surrender a dog that had killed another dog and a dog that had become ill after whelping puppies. Travis, an Animal Control employee, called the police. Officers arrested and searched Neita, then searched his vehicle, and his business premises. Neita was charged with animal cruelty and 13 counts of violating an animal owner’s duties under Illinois law. He was found not guilty on all counts. After his acquittal, Neita suedTravis, the officers, and the city. The judge dismissed the federal claims, holding that Neita not adequately pled any constitutional violation and relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the complaint’s allegations sufficient to state 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims for false arrest and illegal searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Neita alleged that he surrendered two dogs, neither of which showed signs of abuse or neglect, and was arrested without any evidence that he had mistreated either dog. If these allegations are true, no reasonable person would have cause to believe that Neita had abused or neglected an animal. View "Neita v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In 1998, Montana was convicted of aiding and abetting a bank robbery in which an accomplice used a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 2113 and 924(c), and was sentenced to a total of 322 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. He then filed unsuccessful postconviction petitions, including a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. 2255. In 2014, Montana filed a new petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging only his section 924(c) conviction for use of a firearm in a crime of violence. He contended that the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision (Rosemond) narrowed the scope of criminal liability for aiding and abetting section 924(c) offenses and that the court, therefore, had erroneously instructed the jury on the elements of the offense. The district court dismissed the petition on the merits at the screening stage under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting Montana’s prior section 2255 motion and the consequent statutory bar on successive petitions. Rosemond significantly changed the landscape for his offense of conviction and therefore applies retroactively, but Montana cannot avail himself of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. 2255(e) because he could have brought his current argument at an earlier time. View "Montana v. Cross" on Justia Law

Wilson and Hanson, business partners, had a property ownership dispute. Warren County issued a letter stating that real property occupied by Wilson had to be cleaned up, but sent the letter to Hanson. Hanson, attorney Johnson, and Reiners, photographed Wilson’s property. Wilson, who suffers from psychological disorders, became upset and was hospitalized. Wilson’s friend called State’s Attorney Algren, who stated that the men could not take Wilson's property without a court order. Hanson, through Johnson, sought such an order, but was unsuccessful because the judge was unavailable. Johnson told Algren about the suit but did not disclose his failure to get the order. When the men began removing items, Wilson called the sheriff’s department, which dispatched Carithers, who believed that Hanson owned the property. Johnson told Carithers that they had a legal right to remove property and handed him a stack of "court papers." Carithers called Algren, who advised him that if Johnson had the proper papers, they were within their rights. Wilson suffered another anxiety attack. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment, rejecting Wilson’s claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Hanson, Johnson, Reiners, the county, Carithers, and Algren, and dismissal of a Fair Housing Act claim against the three private defendants.There was insufficient raise the inference that the private defendants would not have removed Wilson's property if he wasn’t disabled or that they acted under color of law. View "Wilson v. Warren County" on Justia Law

Dawkins was convicted of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113(a), and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. 924(c). He was sentenced to 262 months’ imprisonment, as a career offender, based on Illinois convictions for aggravated vehicular hijacking and residential burglary. He was previously has been denied permission to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion based on the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision, Johnson v. United States. The Seventh Circuit concluded that residential burglary in Illinois is equivalent to generic burglary of a dwelling, which is an enumerated crime of violence, U.S.S.G. 4B1.2(a)(2). Dawkins again sought to challenge his sentence, citing the Supreme Court’s 2016 holding in Mathis v. United States, that Iowa’s burglary statute, which forbids entering “an occupied structure” with the intent to commit a felony is broader than “generic burglary,” and categorically not a violent felony. The Seventh Circuit dismissed. Even if Mathis made reliance on an Illinois burglary conviction suspect for purposes of the career‐offender guideline or Armed Career Criminal Act, Dawkins has already been denied permission to file a successive section 2255 motion, so this claim is barred by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1). An independent claim based on Mathis must be brought, if at all, under 28 U.S.C. 2241 in the district where he is in custody. View "Dawkins v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2006, Southern Illinois University (SIU) hired Dr. Hatcher as an assistant professor of political science. In 2010 Hatcher assisted a graduate student in making a sexual harassment complaint about a faculty member. Hatcher was up for tenure and promotion to associate professor in 2011. Hatcher had received positive annual evaluations. Her external reviewers all recommended tenure.The political science department voted in favor of promotion and tenure. The College of Liberal Arts committee voted 5‐4 in favor of tenure and 5‐4 against promotion, noting Hatcher’s success in teaching and service, but expressing concern about her lack of academic publications in prestigious journals. The dean recommended that she receive neither tenure nor promotion. The provost agreed. Hatcher was denied tenure and, later, fired. Two male professors in Hatcher’s department were promoted and awarded tenure. The Review Board found that the provost did not sufficiently explain his decision; the Chancellor agreed, but declined to reverse the denial. Hatcher filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Her subsequent suit was dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. Hatcher did not produce evidence from which a jury could conclude that SIU was lying about its reason for denying her tenure; she was not engaging in speech protected under Title VII or by the First Amendment when she assisted the student with the sexual harassment report. The court reversed dismissal of her claim of retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. View "Hatcher v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a prisoner and a Wiccan, was denied permission to wear a “pentacle medallion,”a five-pointed silver star set in a circle less than an inch in diameter. The pentacle medallion is to the Wiccan religion what the cross is to many Christians. Plaintiff’s medallion was small enough to comply with prison regulations regarding jewelry; the day after issuing him a jewelry retention permit, the prison confiscated the medallion. In plaintiff’s suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc–1, the warden argued that the Illinois Department of Corrections prohibits inmates from possessing “five and six-point star symbols” because they are usable as gang identifiers. Without addressing the merits of the suit or the defense, the district judge denied a preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” inquiry asks whether the government has substantially burdened religious exercise, not whether the claimant is able to engage in other forms of religious exercise. The court noted that the plaintiff is willing to wear his medallion under his shirt whenever he’s outside his cell to protect himself from being identified as a gang member and had tendered an affidavit from another Wiccan prisoner, who attested that he has worn his medallion in maximum security prisons since 1998 without experiencing threats or violence. View "Knowles v. Pfister" on Justia Law