Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Indiana inmate Flynn claims that the prison impermissibly favored Honor Program participants by allowing them more time outside their cells, more visits, exclusive access to video games, and greater use exercise machines and microwaves. To be eligible for the Program, inmates must be at least 30 (previously 35) years old and cannot have committed any infraction for 24 months or an infraction involving violence for 48 months. Flynn alleges that his first application was denied because he was too young. His reapplication after the minimum age was lowered was denied because the program and waiting list were full. He sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking the same privileges as Program inmates. The court construed the complaint as claiming age discrimination and dismissed because using age as a proxy for maturity is rationally related to conferring greater trust and responsibility. Flynn unsuccessfully sought reconsideration, arguing that the court ignored his equal protection claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Where disparate treatment is not based on a suspect class and does not affect a fundamental right, prison administrators may treat inmates differently if that treatment is rationally related to a legitimate penological interest. There are obvious reasons to extend preferential treatment to Program inmates; there are rational reasons for evaluating the prisoner before awarding benefits. The court noted that Flynn incurred one “strike” for filing his complaint and another for his appeal. View "Flynn v. Thatcher" on Justia Law

Nettles-Bey travels to assist African-American youths. El-Bey invited Nettles-Bey to South Holland, offered accommodations at “his house," and gave Nettles-Bey a garage-door opener. Nettles-Bey entered the house;. El-Bey, however, was a squatter, with no lawful interest in the house. The property owner arrived while Nettles-Bey was present and called the police, reporting a trespass. On arriving, officers discovered literature referring to Moorish Science. The officers contend that they take into custody anyone who is the subject of a trespass complaint, so they arrested Nettles-Bey as a matter of routine. Nettles-Bey says that the officers remarked on his status as a Moor and congratulated themselves on detaining another member of that troublesome sect. Nettles-Bey sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officers assumed from his name that he is a Moor and would not have arrested a Christian or an atheist. The court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. When the argument concerns facts, rather than legal uncertainty, an appeal must await a final decision. The district judge had no doubt about the law, deeming it clearly established that an officer may not arrest someone believed to hold certain religious beliefs, when in otherwise-identical circumstances the officer would not arrest a person holding different beliefs. The judge denied the motion because of doubt about what reasonable jurors would infer about why the officers arrested Nettles-Bey. View "Nettles-Bey v. Williams" on Justia Law

Kuttner began working as a DuPage County deputy sheriff in 1998. In an October 2009 complaint, Sheriff Zaruba asserted that, several months earlier, Kuttner, in uniform, visited the home of a person who owed money to her boyfriend. The debtor’s father had answered the door and told Kuttner that his son was not home. Kuttner left a business card listing her name and a company called “Team in Focus.” Kuttner stipulated to the facts and admitted to violating two rules: by “conduct unbecoming” an officer and improper wearing of the uniform. Other disciplinary charges were dropped. The Merit Commission determined that Kuttner’s conduct was serious enough to warrant discharge. The EEOC declined action. Kuttner sued, claiming sex discrimination (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) and alleging that Kuttner was fired and denied a promotion because of her sex and that the sheriff’s policies regarding jail staffing discriminated against female employees. Her lawyer sought the personnel files of more than 30 employees in an effort to find a “similarly situated” employee who was treated differently. The judge imposed limits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed those limits and summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Kuttner v. Zaruba" on Justia Law

In 2011 Wisconsin enacted a statute requiring voters to present photographic identification. A federal district judge found violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and enjoined its application. The Seventh Circuit reversed. After the Supreme Court declined review, the state amended Act 23 to require acceptance of veterans’ IDs. The district court declined to address plaintiffs' remaining argument that some persons qualified to vote are entitled to relief because they face daunting obstacles to obtaining acceptable photo ID. The Seventh Circuit vacated in part; it did not previously hold that persons unable to get a photo ID with reasonable effort lack a serious grievance. The right to vote is personal and is not defeated by the fact that 99% of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily. Under Wisconsin’s law, people who do not have qualifying photo ID cannot vote, even if it is impossible for them to get such an ID. Plaintiffs want relief from that prohibition, not from the general application of Act 23. The district court should permit the parties to explore how the state’s system works today before considering plaintiffs’ remaining substantive contentions. View "Frank v. Walker" on Justia Law

In 2009, Tolliver agreed to deliver drugs for Tyson. Tolliver left Tyson's house with cocaine. A confidential informant had described Tolliver’s car and a drug packaging operation at Tyson’s house. Two officers, in plain clothes, stopped Tolliver, exited their unmarked car, and pointed a gun at Tolliver. According to Tolliver, he backed up about a car length. Tolliver, who was unarmed, then realized that he was dealing with police. He claims that he did not want the officer to think that he was reaching for a gun, so he sat motionless, with his hands on the steering wheel, and his foot on the brake. He claims that the officer shot him while he was in that position and that he became unable to control the car, which rolled toward the officers. The officers fired 14 times and Tolliver was struck by seven bullets. He pled guilty to aggravated battery of a peace officer and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, but then sued for excessive force. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the officers. A convicted criminal may not bring a civil suit questioning his conviction until the conviction has been set aside. Tolliver’s suit rests on a version of the event that completely negates the basis for his conviction. View "Tolliver v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Two individuals made false statements to a Village of Deerfield police officer, which resulted in Doe’s arrest. The Village prosecuted Doe for ordinance violations. Although the Village became aware of the falsity of the statements during the prosecution, it nevertheless proceeded and refused to dismiss the charges. The criminal case “resolved in [Doe’s] favor,” and he obtained an order expunging his related arrest and prosecution records. Doe asserts that his arrest and prosecution were conducted in retaliation for his previous lawsuit against a Deerfield police officer. Doe filed an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and a malicious prosecution claim under Illinois law. The defendants moved to dismiss, citing Doe’s failure to comply with FRCP 10(a) requiring him to provide his true name in his complaint’s caption. The court denied Doe’s motion to proceed anonymously, finding Doe did not show exceptional circumstances. Doe argued that having to reveal his true identity would thwart the purpose of the expungement of his criminal records and would embarrass him. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first holding that an order denying leave to proceed anonymously falls within the collateral order doctrine and is immediately appealable, but Doe failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying anonymity. View "Doe v. Village of Deerfield" on Justia Law

Chicago Officer Jung, patrolling with his partner, approached “Maxwell Street Hot Dog Stand” and saw a woman run into traffic waving her hands, her face covered in blood. She stated that her husband had struck her and pointed toward Hall, to identify her husband. Jung parked, and walked toward Hall. Hall did not comply with Jung’s commands to “stop, put his hands behind his back, calm down, [and] stop screaming.” Jones grabbed Hall. who attempted to twist away; his momentum caused him to fall. After he was in handcuffs, Hall continued to resist and again fell to the ground. Hall did not complain of pain or indicate that his arm was injured. Hours later at the police station, Hall complained of pain; he was taken to the hospital, where doctors discovered his arm was fractured. The entire arrest was captured on video. Hall pleaded guilty to resisting arrest, but filed suit, claiming excessive force, assault, and battery. During discovery, the magistrate set a deadline for Hall to disclose his expert witness (FRCP 26(a)(2)). Hall failed to provide the expert’s report and did not respond to Jung’s motion to strike. The magistrate barred Hall from presenting the expert. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a verdict in Jung’s favor, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings because Hall failed to provide transcripts memorializing proceedings regarding three rulings. Hall’s fourth challenge did not warrant reversal. View "Hall v. Jung" on Justia Law

In September 2008 Dixon was sent to the Cook County jail as a pretrial detainee. A month later, he developed severe and persistent pain in his back and abdomen. In December, he had a CT scan that revealed a paratracheal mass. Over the next few weeks, the mass grew rapidly. Medical personnel at the jail were aware of the problem, but accused Dixon of malingering, gave him over-the-counter analgesics, and ordered him to seek psychiatric care. By January 2009, Dixon’s condition had deteriorated severely. He was finally taken to Stroger Hospital, where he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He died two months later. Dixon’s mother sued Cook County and the doctor and nurse who had overseen Dixon’s care at the jail, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for deliberate indifference to Dixon’s serious medical condition in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, and state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the claims. The Seventh Circuit vacated. A reasonable jury could find that pervasive systemic deficiencies in the detention center’s health-care system were the moving force behind Dixon’s injury. View "Kevin Dixon v. Cook County, Illinois" on Justia Law

Chaib worked for GEO Group, a private company that managed an Indiana correctional facility. In 2011-2012, Chaib filed several complaints of racism and workplace harassment with the human resources department and her supervisor. She was injured at work in March 2012, when a remotely-operated metal gate hit her head. Chaib suffered a concussion, GEO Group became suspicious that Chaib was malingering, had an investigator videotape her in public places, and sent the videos to a neurologist whom Chaib was scheduled to visit, ahead of the appointment and without Chaib’s knowledge. The neurologist opined to GEO Group that Chaib was likely malingering. Chaib returned to work after six weeks. She was ultimately fired for “unbecoming conduct” because she improperly extended her medical leave. Chaib sued under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e., and 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and national origin, and retaliation for her reports of workplace discrimination. Chaib also alleged, under Indiana law, that GEO Group had retaliated against her for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of GEO. Chaib did not present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that GEO Group terminated Chaib for discriminatory reasons View "Chaib v. Geo Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Hill, an Indiana inmate, sued prison staff under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they had violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect him from inmates who threw feces at him on four occasions in 2011-2012. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that Hill had not exhausted administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Hill claimed that prison staff had prevented him from filing formal grievances. For the first two incidents, they had improperly refused to process grievance forms. For the third and fourth incidents, they prevented him from filing formal grievances. His counselor refused to give him a grievance form after the third incident, and after the fourth incident, defendant Snyder demanded to know its exact time. Hill is now time-barred by the prison’s grievance policy from further pursuing administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit concluded that summary judgment was improper for three of the incidents. Evidence of refusals to give Hill an available form was sufficient to permit a finding that Hill was prevented from grieving these incidents. The administrative remedies were not available to him. He was not required to hunt for a form from others. View "Hill v. Snyder" on Justia Law