Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Becker sued Evansville, Indiana police officer Elfreich under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging Elfreich used excessive force in arresting him because, after Becker had surrendered, Elfreich pulled him down three steps and placed his knee on his back while allowing a police dog to continue to bite him. Officers had arrived with an arrest warrant, which alleged that three weeks earlier Becker had held a knife to his brother-in-law’s neck and threatened to kill him. Elfreich claimed that he released the dog only after Becker failed to respond to warnings to come out of hiding and that the dog could not hear the release command because of screaming; he argued he was entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not constitute excessive force or, alternatively, that it did not violate clearly established constitutional law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of Elfreich’s motion for summary judgment. A jury could reasonably find the force was excessive; it was clearly established at the time of Becker’s arrest that no more than minimal force was permissible to arrest a non-resisting, or passively resisting, suspect. View "Becker v. Effriechs" on Justia Law

The Home and Community‐Based Care Waiver Program allowed states to diverge from the traditional Medicaid structure by providing community‐based services to people who would, under the traditional structure, require institutionalization, 42 U.S.C. 1396n. The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration operates the Aged and Disabled Medicaid Waiver Program (A&D waiver), the Community Integration and Habilitation Medicaid Waiver Program (CIH waiver), and the Family Supports Medicaid Waiver Program (FS waiver). Because Indiana has closed most of its institutional facilities, these waiver programs serve the vast majority of its people with disabilities. Until 2011, the Administration placed many people with developmental disabilities on the A&D waiver, which has no cap on services. The Administration then changed its policies, rendering many developmentally disabled persons ineligible for the A&D waiver. These people were moved to the FS waiver, under which they may receive services capped at $16,545 annually. The CIH waiver is uncapped, but not everyone qualifies for the CIH waiver. Plaintiffs argue that their new assignments violated the integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 because it deprives them of community interaction and puts them at risk of institutionalization. The court granted defendants summary judgment on the integration‐mandate claims and denied class certification. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that there is a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the individual claims based on the integration mandate. The court agreed that the proposed class is too vague. View "Steimel v. Wernert" on Justia Law

Over the past decade, Attorney Novoselsky has filed many lawsuits alleging improprieties by Dorothy Brown, in her capacity as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Brown later made statements to private parties, the public, and the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee, accusing Novoselsky of being an unscrupulous attorney. Novoselsky sued Brown under state law for defamation and under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, and he sought to hold Cook County liable for Brown’s actions. Brown unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that her communications are protected from liability by immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed. On the state‐law defamation claim, Brown’s communications were all statements reasonably related to her official duties. Illinois state law provides immunity to Brown for claims based on these statements. Brown is also entitled to summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim, for all she did to retaliate was criticize Novoselsky, so Cook County is also entitled to summary judgment. View "Novoselsky v. Brown" on Justia Law

McDonald was diagnosed with arthritis and high cholesterol while serving a life sentence at Stateville Correctional Center in Illinois. For 10 years, he received a low-cholesterol diet planned by a prison dietician In 2009, a new warden discharged the dietician and cancelled all special diets; decreased the frequency of outdoor recreation for inmates; and altered the prison’s job-assignment policy to restrict inmates from working in a particular job for more than one year. McDonald filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the Equal Protection Clause (inmates at the other Illinois maximum-security prisons were allowed to have prescription diets and more time for outdoor recreation). The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed in part. The wardens were not entitled to summary judgment on McDonald’s claim concerning the cancellation of his prescription diet. View "McDonald v. Hardy" on Justia Law

Officers noticed Morgan as he crossed the street and pursued him on suspicion that he was in possession of a firearm. They apprehended Morgan outside a house, using force that Morgan would later contend was excessive but that the officers would maintain was reasonable because he was resisting arrest. He was charged with resisting arrest and possession of a controlled substance based on a small bag of cocaine, which the officers claimed to have found near Morgan after his arrest. The state court dismissed the possession charge on the ground that there was not probable cause to prosecute, and the State’s Attorney dropped the charge for resisting arrest. Morgan sued the arresting officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the defendants had violated the Equal Protection Clause by exercising their peremptory strikes on a racially discriminatory basis during jury selection and that the district court had committed multiple procedural and substantive errors, View "Morgan v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Columbia hired Professor Roberts in 1999. Roberts achieved tenure in 2003 and began creating a custom textbook, with the help of a colleague and graduate students. Roberts worked with McGraw‐Hill and used materials from three existing textbooks plus limited original material. The cover page of the custom text states, “Peer review, class testing, and accuracy are primarily the responsibility of the author(s).” The first time Roberts saw the completed textbook was when he purchased it after his students for the 2004 fall semester arrived in class having purchased the textbook. Roberts then noticed several errors, such as omitting the reference to the text. Roberts called McGraw‐Hill, but did not follow up with details. He provided his students with a corrected reference page. Roberts and his colleagues did not use the custom text again due to the errors and its price. Roberts made no further efforts to ensure McGraw‐Hill corrected the omissions. Roberts updated his curriculum vitae twice, listing the text as his publication. In 2011, Roberts, then about 50 years old, had several conflicts with the department chair, which Roberts believed were based on age discrimination. After a plagiarism investigation, Roberts was terminated. The Seventh Circuit affirmed rejection, on summary judgment, of his claims of breach of contract and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621. View "Roberts v. Columbia College Chicago" on Justia Law

Cairel and Johnson, lawfully repossessing cars, were stopped for a traffic violation. The officers, aware of recent robberies in the area, grew suspicious and called a victim to the scene. The victim identified Cairel and Johnson as the men who had robbed him the night before. The officers arrested them. During subsequent questioning, Cairel, who has a learning disability and low IQ, confessed to several robberies and implicated Johnson. Prosecutors filed charges. Johnson pled guilty in exchange for probation. Further investigation revealed that both men were innocent. A year later, prosecutors dismissed Cairel’s case and allowed Johnson to withdraw his plea. Neither man was imprisoned. They sued the detectives under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for allegedly fabricating Johnson’s confession, failing to disclose a potential alibi witness, and coercing Cairel’s confession. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs were not deprived of sufficient liberty to support their fabrication claim. There was no evidence that defendants concealed evidence unknown to plaintiffs supporting their alibi or that any failure to disclose caused a deprivation of liberty. No reasonable jury could find that Cairel’s interrogation “shocked the conscience” or that defendants’ conduct was so “extreme and outrageous” as to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress.Probable cause for the criminal charges defeated claims for malicious prosecution. View "Cairel v. Alderden" on Justia Law

In 2006, Bell was adjudicated a sexually dangerous person and civilly detained. After attacking a guard at the Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, he was convicted and spent the four years in prison. When his sentence expired in 2010, he was returned to Rushville, where he declined to cooperate with intake procedures and threatened guards. Housed in segregation, he resisted the Facility’s normal operation. After 20 days, Bell was taken to a secure infirmary room, with large windows, and denied clothing. Bell's resistance resulted in some use of force. He spent eight days naked in the infirmary. On the ninth day Bell cooperated, was given clothes ,and moved to the general population. He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court granted all defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit remanded. Because he is a civil detainee, not a prisoner, Bell invoked the Due Process Clause, not the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. To say that harsh conditions are proper as a penalty for crime does not justify Bell’s treatment. Spending eight days naked in a fan-blown stream of chilled air might not be proper for a convicted prisoner, when the goal was to get the prisoner to pose for a photograph. While Bell did not file a timely appeal, he did file other papers that could be treated as notice of appeal or a request for an extension. View "Bell v. McAdory" on Justia Law

During an argument, Burris fired his handgun, hitting Kamal in the neck and paralyzing him. Burris fled and evaded police for five months, before surrendering. The state judge instructed the jury on first-degree reckless injury, possession of a firearm by a felon, and the lesser included offense of second-degree reckless injury. For first-degree liability, the government had to prove circumstances showing an “utter disregard for human life.” Burris argued that the shooting was an accident. The jury submitted a written question: “Regarding the element of utter disregard, all other facts and circumstances relating to the incident, do we consider facts and circumstances after the shooting?” The judge gave a supplemental instruction: First of all, I want to emphasize that you are to rely on the instructions that I gave you. All right? And to rely on all of the instructions that I gave you. And in response to this question, if this clarifies anything, after-the-fact regard for human life does not negate utter disregard otherwise established by the circumstances before and during the crime. It may be considered by the fact-finder as a part of the total factual picture, but it does not operate to preclude a finding of utter disregard for human life. The element of utter disregard for human life is measured objectively on the basis of what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known. The jury convicted Burris of first-degree reckless injury. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that, although the instruction may have been ambiguous, it was not reasonably likely that it misled the jury. The federal district court denied habeas relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law . View "Burris v. Smith" on Justia Law

Wells worked as a “computer navigator” at the Winnebago County courthouse, helping pro se litigants deal with the judicial system’s requirements. She claimed that before her departure to take a better job, state and county officials discriminated against her on the basis of her race (she is black) and disability (chronic fatigue syndrome). The district court granted summary judgment to the county, finding any discrimination attributable to state workers and that the record would not allow a reasonable jury to find actionable discrimination. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Evidence would permit a jury to find that Winnebago County was Wells’s employer, the entity responsible for complying with federal employment discrimination statutes, regardless of the identity of the person whose acts are complained of, but Wells was treated the same as the other computer navigators, who were white. She did not contend that any supervisor said anything about race or used language with racial connotations. Time off had been granted as an accommodation of her disability and Wells did not substantiate the medical need for any additional accommodation. View "Wells v. Winnebago County" on Justia Law