Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

For 60 years, a butcher shop operated on property in Black Earth that is zoned for commercial use, as a legal nonconforming use. In 2001, BEM purchased the property. After 2009, the volume and frequency of slaughter increased. By 2011, neighbors were complaining about increased traffic, trucks blocking the road, livestock noise, foul odors, improper storage of animal parts, and the presence of offal, blood, and animal waste in the streets. Steers escaped from the facility three times and had to be shot dead on Village streets. In 2013, the Village held several public meetings, and, because citations had no effect on BEM’s behavior, ordered BEM to propose an acceptable plan for relocating its slaughter activities. BEM did not relocate. After several delays, the Village threatened litigation. As a result of that threat, the USDA refused to guarantee a bank loan to BEM. BEM lost its financing, closed, and sued the Village and board members. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Even if the threat of litigation could, itself, constitute a due process violation and were a sufficiently direct cause of BEM’s alleged deprivations, there is no evidence that the process accorded to BEM was inadequate. Procedural due process generally requires only “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” View "Black Earth Meat Mkt., LLC v. Village of Black Earth" on Justia Law

Sutton has been convicted of violent crimes in multiple separate Illinois prosecutions, including 1991 and 1997 convictions for attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual assault. The state concedes that it unlawfully collected a sample of Sutton’s blood during the 1991 prosecution and then used that blood sample in the 1997 prosecution. In his habeas conviction, relating to the 1997 case, the district court granted relief. The Seventh Circuit reversed, citing the inevitable discovery doctrine. Although the court order under which the blood was collected was not supported by probable cause, the blood (and thus the DNA) would inevitably have been produced under a state law that provided legal authority for collecting the sample. The relevant statute stated that persons convicted of certain sexual offenses “shall … be required to submit blood samples and saliva to the Illinois State Police.” (currently codified at 730 ILCS 5/5-4-3). View "Sutton v. Pfister" on Justia Law

In 2002, Nina Buckner was found brutally murdered in her home. Forensic testing confirmed that the blood on a hammer and knife found at the scene belonged to Buckner; the blood was also found on King’s clothes. Buckner’s neighbors reported seeing King near Buckner’s home the night of Buckner’s murder. When questioned, King gave multiple, very different, versions of his actions during that night. King was convicted of the first‐degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.The trial judge that presided over King’s trial and sentencing had represented King over 15 years earlier as an assistant public defender. King’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and denied review by the Illinois Supreme Court. King's petition for post‐conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court, affirmed on appeal, and denied review by the Illinois Supreme Court. Subsequently, King unsuccessfully petitioned for habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. 2254, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, for not seeking substitution of the trial judge. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, noting that the judge had no independent recollection of King and that the evidence against King was overwhelming. King did not “fairly present” a federal due process claim of ineffective assistance in a complete round of state court review. View "King v. Pfister" on Justia Law

Illinois prisoner Petties was climbing stairs when he felt a “pop” and extreme pain in his ankle. At the prison infirmary, the examining physician prescribed Vicodin and crutches and a week of “lay-in.” The medical director, Dr. Carter, noted in the file that Petties had suffered an “Achilles tendon rupture” and modified the instructions, directing that Petties be scheduled for an MRI and orthopedic examination as an “urgent” matter. Prison lockdowns resulted in cancelation of three appointments. Eight weeks passed before he received an orthopedic boot. Petties claimed that a year later, he still experienced “serious pain, soreness, and stiffness” in his ankle. Petties argued that Carter was deliberately indifferent by failing to immobilize his ankle with a boot or cast immediately and that a physician he saw later was deliberately indifference in not ordering physical therapy despite a recommendation. The Seventh Circuit initially affirmed summary judgment in favor of the doctors, but on rehearing, en banc, reversed. Even if a doctor denies knowing that he was exposing a plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm, evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer a doctor knew he was providing deficient treatment is sufficient to survive summary judgment. Petties produced sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the doctors knew the care they were providing was insufficient. View "Petties v. Carter" on Justia Law

Hillmann began working for the Chicago Parks District in 1973. Later he became a Department of Streets and Sanitation truck driver. In 1984 he developed cervical radiculopathy, a work-related injury. In 1995 he entered into an accommodation agreement with the city and was reassigned as chief timekeeper. He never performed all of the duties required by the job description, but he performed the essential functions and other tasks as directed by his supervisor. In 2000 a new supervisor gave Hillmann duties that required use of his injured arm.. Hillmann experienced various difficulties until his position was eliminated in 2002, in a city-wide reduction in forces. He sued, alleging that he was targeted because he asserted his rights under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101. A jury found in Hillmann’s favor on the IWCA claim and awarded damages. The judge rejected the ADA claim. The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the city; neither claim should have been tried. To prevail on his claim that he was discharged for exercising his rights under the IWCA, Hillmann needed to prove causation. No evidence suggests that the RIF decision-maker knew about Hillmann’s claim. The ADA claim likewise fails for lack of proof of causation. Hillmann has no evidence that the city withheld raises or targeted him for the RIF based on his ADA accommodation. View "Hillmann v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

In 1996, a jury convicted Poe of narcotics‐related offenses, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE), 21 U.S.C. 848(c). In 1999, the Supreme Court decided Richardson v. United States, rendering the CCE jury instructions used in Poe’s trial erroneous: “You must unanimously find that the defendant committed at least two violations of the federal drug laws, but you do not have to agree on which two violations.” Poe sought habeas relief, 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging his conviction under Richardson. Fourteen months later, the district court dismissed Poe’s petition without prejudice, because he should have filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255. Poe’s June 18, 2001 habeas petition, under section 2255, was denied as time‐barred. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2006. In 2014, Poe filed a new section 2241 petition, citing Alleyne v. United States (2013). The district court denied his petition, again for not filing it under section 2255. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Construing Poe’s petition as a successive one under section 2255 would be futile; that section allows a successive motion for “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Alleyne is not retroactive on collateral review.” View "Poe v. LaRiva" on Justia Law

Armstrong filed suit under 42 U.S.C.1983, claiming that Belleville police needlessly used a Taser against him. Armstrong did not reply to defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court entered judgment. Armstrong did not appeal within 30 days or request an extension. In September 2014 he requested a docket sheet, which showed the case as closed in May. In January 2015, Armstrong moved to reopen, claiming that he had not received defendants’ motion or the order. The motion cited FRCP 59(e), but the judge deemed it to be under Rule 60(b), because it had not been filed within 28 days, then denied the motion. Armstrong had notified the clerk of his address change, but did not include the caption or docket number of either of two suits he had pending. The clerk found one case, but apparently was unaware of the other. In March, Armstrong filed another unsuccessful motion; 38 days later, a notice of appeal appeared in the electronic filing system, from a state prison library. Armstrong stated that he gave the notice to staff, who delayed filing. The Seventh Circuit deemed the appeal timely under the mailbox rule, FRAP 4(c)(1), but nonetheless affirmed the dismissal. Armstrong did not appeal until after denial of multiple post-judgment motions. Successive post-judgment motions do not extend the time to appeal the denial of the initial motion, nor from the original judgment. Armstrong learned of the judgment within 180 days, but waited to seek relief. Armstrong missed deadlines that a court cannot extend, so the characterization of his papers is irrelevant. View "Armstrong v. City of Belleville" on Justia Law

Ortiz worked as a freight broker for Werner Enterprises for seven years until his discharge in 2012. Werner claims that it fired Ortiz for falsifying business records. Ortiz claims that Werner fired him because of his Mexican ethnicity and sued Werner under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment rejection of the claims. A reasonable juror could infer that managers did not like Hispanics and tried to pin heavy losses on Ortiz to force him out and also might infer that, because of Ortiz’s ethnicity, Werner’s managers fired him for using techniques that were tolerated when practiced by other brokers. It is also possible that a jury might not credit Ortiz’s evidence and could accept Werner’s explanations. Given the conflict on material issues, a trial is necessary. View "Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

O’Malley is serving 10 years in prison for violating the Clean Air Act by improperly removing and disposing of insulation containing regulated asbestos, 42 U.S.C. 7413(c)(1). After the Seventh Circuit upheld his convictions on direct appeal, O’Malley filed what he called a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. That rule authorizes a district court to grant a timely request for a new trial “if the interest of justice so requires.” The district court concluded that O’Malley’s submission contained constitutional theories that, the court reasoned, are incompatible with Rule 33 and cognizable only under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and that the remainder of O’Malley’s motion could not entitle him to relief under Rule 33, because the new evidence, purportedly discrediting a prosecution witness, was not material. The Seventh Circuit vacated, concluding that the entirety of O’Malley’s submission was within the scope of Rule 33(b)(1) even if his theories overlap with section 2255 and that the district court should have respected his choice between these available means of relief. View "United States v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

Whatley was convicted, under a now‐repealed Indiana law, of possessing about three grams of cocaine within 1000 feet of a “youth program center.” Whatley’s father’s home, where he was arrested, was 795 feet from the Robinson Community Church, which hosted events targeted to young persons, including religious services, mentoring programs, a Girl Scout troop, weekly Family Fun Night, and children’s choirs. On direct appeal and in federal habeas corpus proceedings, Whatley argued that the statutory definition of “youth program center,” as any: building or structure that on a regular basis provides recreational, vocational, academic, social, or other programs or services for persons less than eighteen (18) years of age,” was unconstitutionally vague. The district court declined to address the claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Whatley did not procedurally default his claim. The state courts were unreasonable in applying federal law on vagueness: the word “regular” in the definition provides no objective standard and fails to place persons of ordinary intelligence on notice of the conduct proscribed and allows for arbitrary enforcement; defendants are strictly liable for violating the nebulous provision; and the consequences of a violation were extreme. No one in Whatley’s position could have known that the Church would fall within the definition simply because it hosted a few children’s events each week. View "Whatley v. Zatecky" on Justia Law