Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Gaylord pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to distribution of oxycodone. Evins had ingested the oxycodone pills distributed by Gaylord, as well as cocaine from another source, and died. Gaylord was sentenced to 240 months imprisonment, the mandatory minimum sentence when death results from the distribution of a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C). Gaylord later brought a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, arguing that as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, the “death results” enhancement of section 841(b)(1)(C) was inappropriately applied to his sentence. Gaylord contended that the oxycodone he distributed was not shown to be the but-for cause of Evins’s death, so counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the sentencing enhancement incorporated in the plea agreement. The district court dismissed Gaylord’s motion. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Gaylord’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to provide Gaylord’s counsel with an opportunity to explain whether he was aware of the “but-for” causation requirement and whether he examined the postmortem and forensic pathology reports and shared the results of his analysis with Gaylord. View "Gaylord v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1994, Shott, a tenured associate professor of biostatistics at Rush University, sued, claiming discrimination by refusing to make reasonable accommodations for her religion (Orthodox Judaism) and disability (rheumatoid arthritis). A jury rejected Shott’s claim of religious discrimination but awarded her $60,000 for disability discrimination. She sued Rush again in 2011, alleging that Rush refused to increase her salary or promote her in retaliation for her earlier lawsuit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Rush. While that lawsuit was pending, Shott sued Katz (42 U.S.C. 1981), whom she had occasionally helped with statistical analysis, alleging that, in retaliation for her litigation Katz impeded her career advancement by rebuffing her invitations to collaborate. Katz was also Shott’s treating rheumatologist; she claimed he failed to timely respond to requests for prescription refills, requiring her to have an examination every six months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, noting that Shott had not alleged that Katz’s medical care affected Shott's employment. Nor did the examination requirement amount to a material adverse action. “If she was not willing to comply with that obviously reasonable condition, she should have tried to find a new doctor, not filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.” Shott failed to allege a sufficient “nexus” between Katz’s refusal to collaborate and her career advancement; Katz’s decisions about what research to pursue, and with whom, are protected by the First Amendment. View "Shott v. Katz" on Justia Law

Torres‐Chavez, a member of the drug‐trafficking cartel “La Familia,” which is based in Michoacán, Mexico, was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment after his convictions for conspiring to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, and using a cellular phone to facilitate the distribution conspiracy, After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, Torres‐Chavez sought collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming that six months before trial, the government offered a plea agreement that provided for 10 years’ imprisonment (the statutory minimum for conspiring to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II)) and that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for advising him that the government lacked enough evidence to convict him. The district court denied Torres‐Chavez’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding that this advice was not objectively unreasonable. The Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling as premature. The record contains no evidence about what Torres‐Chavez’s counsel knew about the government’s case against his client at the time of the offer, and the government’s case at trial was quite strong. View "Torres-Chavez v. United States" on Justia Law

Felix suffers from mental health disabilities, including PTSD, major depressive disorder, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and phobia. She takes prescribed medication and attends counseling. Felix was employed from 1998 to 2013 in the Appleton Division of Motor Vehicles customer service facility, administering road tests, performing clerical duties, and collecting fees. She “was punctual, reliable, friendly with customers, and patient with new drivers.” She excelled in administering road tests, but did not meet expectations in financial accountability. A 2011 rule change precluded an overall rating of satisfactory if the employee did not meet expectations in specified areas, including financial accountability. Felix was given an overall evaluation of unsatisfactory and was placed on probation. Her difficulties persisted. Her employer's procedures called for a final performance improvement plan which, if not completed successfully, would result in her discharge. Felix began to experience panic attacks and notified her supervisor of her anxiety disorders. One panic attack included hysterical screaming and self-harm. Her co-workers called 911. She did not return to work. An independent medical examiner concluded that she “remains at increased risk for potentially violent behavior toward self and others within the workplace.” Her employment was terminated. She sued under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Felix, reasoning that she was discharged not solely because of her disabilities but based on workplace behavior that indicated that she posed a safety risk to herself and others. View "Felix v. Wis. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former detainees, brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Cook County, claiming that the level of dental care at the Jail demonstrated deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court originally certified two classes of plaintiffs under FRCP 23, but later decertified one class and modified the other, finding that the Jail’s implementation of a consent order with the Department of Justice eliminated a common question concerning inadequate staffing and brought care into compliance with national standards. The court could not find another common factor among the claims, noting that “treatment of dental pain may fall below the deliberate indifference threshold for many reasons and at many stages.” The court then determined that the detainees’ motion for injunctive relief was moot. While an appeal was pending, the detainees unsuccessfully moved for a new trial (FRCP 60(b)) based on newly discovered evidence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding decertification of the classes because of the lack of a common issue of fact or law. The detainees’ questions do not point to the type of systematic and gross deficiency that would lead to a finding that all detainees are effectively denied treatment; they did not allege a specific policy that directly causes delay, nor a pattern of egregious delays across the entire class. Filing a Rule 60(b) motion during the interlocutory appeal was inappropriate; there was no final judgment in the case. View "Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County" on Justia Law

Morris filed an application under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3), seeking authorization to file a successive motion to vacate under section 2255. Morris was sentenced as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. 924(e) and wanted to challenge his sentence under the Supreme Court’s 2015 holding, in Johnson v. United States, that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive. The Seventh Circuit granted the petition. Morris made a prima facie showing that he may be entitled to relief. Morris proposes to challenge only one of his three predicate offenses: his conviction for attempted robbery in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/8‐4(a), 18‐1(a). To determine whether an attempt offense constitutes a violent felony, a court must examine how state courts have applied the general attempt statute to the particular crime attempted. View "Morris v. United States" on Justia Law

Todd sold 22.1 grams of cocaine to an undercover police officer. In 2010, he pled guilty and, having a criminal record that included five prison sentences totaling 22 years, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He unsuccessfully appealed, claiming ineffective assistance because his lawyer told him the government would recommend no more than a 10‐year sentence. Four years later he unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus in federal court on the same ground. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, noting the evidence in support of state court findings that Todd had not been confused about the terms of the plea agreement and that defense counsel was not ineffective. Even if Todd believed in the claimed 10‐year cap, he either lied or was confused in replying “no” when asked by the judge whether any promises had been made to him other than that his bond would be reduced and the other charge against him dropped. If he was confused and still believed there was a sentencing cap, the trial judge disabused him of his mistake by telling him he could be sentenced to anywhere from six to 60 years even if he pleaded guilty. View "Todd v. Roberson" on Justia Law

Simpson, a registered nurse, began working at St. James Health in 2008 and was not reprimanded until after 2009 when Kelly, a Caucasian woman, became the manager of Simpson’s department. From October 2010 through September 2011 Kelly disciplined Simpson four times. The discipline was progressive. The fourth incident resulted in termination of Simpson’s employment. After the EEOC issued a right‐to‐sue letter, Simpson filed suit, alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621, and race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. The employer claimed that she had not been performing up to expectations and could not identify a similarly situated co-worker who was treated more favorably, noting that Simpson was not disputing the existence of the complaints from patients and their families. The district court granted St. James summary judgment, reasoning that Simpson had established a prima facie case of discrimination under the indirect method, but lacked evidence that the explanation for firing her was pretextual. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Simpson did not even establish a prima facie case of discrimination, let alone that the proffered explanation was pretextual. View "Simpson v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law

Felton was in a car in Harvey, Illinois, when he was approached by an unmarked car with tinted windows. Felton, who was unarmed, claims that he feared for his life and fled onto the expressway, heading toward Chicago. Officers “chased” him, firing guns, then “ram[med]” their cars into his, causing him to crash. He states he was “shot by 6 different stu[n] guns,” “put into critical condition,” and suffered broken bones, bruises, a concussion, lost vision, and other injuries. He underwent several surgeries and suffered “excruciating pain and mental anguish.” He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Because Felton was incarcerated at the time, the judge conducted an initial screening under, 28 U.S.C. 1915A, noting that the allegations were insufficient to state claims against the only named defendants: Chicago and its police superintendent (in his official capacity). The judge found it “painfully obvious” that Felton’s complaint “had omitted critical facts” and consulted newspaper accounts of Felton’s arrest. “Instead of expending further resources in recapping what those newspaper accounts reflected,” the judge attached them as exhibits to his order, dismissing the suit as “frivolous.” The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that at least one part of Felton’s complaint was legally viable: his allegation that he was shot by multiple stun guns. View "Felton v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

After he was temporarily suspended from Watseka Community High School for allegedly consuming or possessing drugs, Dietchweiler filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his due process rights, with state law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and violations of the Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5/10-22.6, which provides procedures for suspending and expelling students. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment on the due process claim and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The administrators explained to Dietchwieler and his parents the general nature of the charges against him and provided him with a written suspension notice. Most of Dietchweiler’s complaints about the hearing relate to the defendants’ alleged failure to follow their own published policies and procedures, but failure to follow state statutes or state-mandated procedures does not amount to a federal due process claim of constitutional magnitude. While the Board disbelieved the evidence he presented, due process does not guarantee that his version of events will be believed. View "Dietchweiler v. Lucas" on Justia Law