Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Brunson purchased the only liquor store in Bridgeport, Illinois. Bridgeport Police Chief Murray was a frequent visitor and often told Brunson that he was violating liquor laws that did not actually exist. Once, Bridgeport Mayor Schauf, also the local liquor commissioner, “confirmed” a non-existent law. Schauf had made a competing offer to purchase the store and had an interest another alcohol-serving establishment by subterfuge. Schauf’s son opened another Bridgeport bar. In 2010, Brunson applied to renew his liquor license weeks before it would expire. A licensee with no violations is entitled to pro forma renewal. Chief Murray told Bronson to hire a lawyer; Schauf told Brunson that he would not renew the license in time. Brunson had to close his business, hired counsel, and contacted the state Commission, which ordered that Brunson be allowed to remain open pending a hearing. Brunson’s liquor supplier then was told by the city clerk to not sell to Brunson. Before the Commission’s scheduled hearing, Schauf retroactively renewed the license without explanation. Subsequently Brunson discovered an attempted break-in; Murray did not file a report. The following weekend, the store was vandalized and the police took no action. Brunson stood guard the next weekend. During the night, the store’s windows were shattered. Bronson found Harshman—a convicted felon, and occasional employee at Schauf’s businesses. After a fight and a chase, Bronson held Harshman at gunpoint until police arrived. Brunson pointed out Schauf’s son waiting nearby. Brunson was charged with felony aggravated battery. Brunson sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the prosecutor, based on absolute prosecutorial immunity, and with respect to false arrest. The court reversed summary judgment on Brunson’s class-of-one equal protection claim and for Schauf, who is not entitled to absolute immunity on Brunson’s due process claim. View "Brunson v. Murray" on Justia Law

In 2004, Nelms retained Katz-Crank, a Michigan lawyer with a practice in cemetery management, to assist in his acquisition of cemeteries and funeral homes in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Trust funds associated with these cemeteries were valued at about $22 million. In 2007 Katz‐Crank learned that Nelms was under investigation by the Indiana Secretary of State for misappropriating cemetery trust assets. Katz‐Crank called Haskett, an investigator in that office, to offer cooperation. Haskett did not return the call. In 2008, Nelms was indicted for embezzling $22 million, pleaded guilty, and agreed to testify against Katz‐Crank. Haskett called some of Katz‐Crank’s clients and stated that Katz‐Crank was under criminal investigation. The Secretary of State and the Marion County prosecutor’s office issued press releases publicizing Katz-Crank’s arrest. A jury acquitted Katz‐Crank. Two years later Katz‐Crank sued Marion County and officials who were involved in her investigation and prosecution, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, with three federal conspiracy claims and state‐law claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district judge rejected all claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Most of Katz‐Crank’s claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment or prosecutorial immunity; the rest were properly dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim. View "Katz-Crank v. Haskett" on Justia Law

Haywood, an inmate at Illinois’s Shawnee Correctional Center, accused a teacher of attacking him. Guards charged him with making false statements. A disciplinary panel found him guilty, ordered him transferred to segregation for two months, and revoked one month of good‐time credit. He was subsequently transferred to a different prison and filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First Amendment violations and that his conditions of confinement in segregation were cruel and unusual, violating the Eighth Amendment. The district court rejected both claims, dismissing the First Amendment claim because the disciplinary panel’s decision, which affected the duration of Haywood’s confinement, had not been set aside on collateral review or by executive clemency. The court cited Supreme Court holdings that section 1983 cannot be used to seek damages when relief necessarily implies the invalidity of a criminal conviction or prison discipline that remains in force. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to the First Amendment theory and reversed with respect to the Eighth Amendment theory, remanding for consideration under the deliberate indifference standard.The warden had actual knowledge of the unusually harsh weather, had been apprised of the specific problem with Haywood’s cell (the windows would not shut), and had toured the segregation unit. View "Haywood v. Hathaway" on Justia Law

In 1997, Rodriguez was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 60 years in prison. The Illinois State Police’s Division of Forensic Services had analyzed four semen stains on a blanket from the bed of the 11-year-old victim. Neither side presented the report at trial. The victim’s mother testified that Rodriquez had indicated he was “up all night” doing laundry; during closing arguments the prosecutor asked whether that might be “to get rid of evidence.” Objecting to the statement, in the presence of the jury, defense counsel stated “In fact, counsel knows that there was sperm on various items that was not presented.” The judge instructed the jury to consider only evidence admitted during trial. On direct appeal, Rodriguez argued, that he was denied effective assistance by the comment about evidence of sperm being found on “various items.” The Illinois Appellate Court denied relief, concluding that Rodriguez had not been prejudiced. The district court denied a subsequent federal habeas corpus petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the state court did not unreasonable the standard from Strickland v. Washington, in light of the other evidence and the judge’s curative instruction. View "Rodriguez v. Gossett" on Justia Law

In 2005, Jennifer’s mother found her 19-year-old daughter dead. Investigators found a chewed 100-microgram Duragesic fentanyl skin patch. The patch is a powerful opioid, not meant to be ingested. Jennifer did not have a prescription. Her friend, Krieger, had such a prescription for pain from severe spinal problems, and had given Jennifer a patch. Investigators also found a hypodermic needle, a small pipe with burnt residue on it, and two red capsules. Neither the capsules nor the pipe were taken into evidence and tested. The syringe was finally tested three years later. A medical examiner found many drugs in Jennifer's system, but concluded that she died from fentanyl toxicity. Krieger was charged with distribution of fentanyl with death resulting, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 841(b)(1)(c). After its medical witness fled the country, with legal problems of his own, the government dropped the “death resulting” charge, which it would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Krieger pleaded guilty to distribution. The prosecution then proposed that “death resulting” be considered as a sentencing factor. The district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that death had resulted from the distribution, and that it could only give a 20-year sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court later issued its decisions in “Alleyne” decision and Burrage v. United States, Krieger filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The Seventh Circuit vacated her sentence. The district court can consider Jennifer’s death, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, as recommended under USSG 2D1.1; implementation of the mandatory minimum sentence, however, would require that a jury find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the patch provided by Krieger was the but-for cause of Curry’s death. The time for such a determination has passed. View "Krieger v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1999, three masked men broke into a Chicago apartment shared by Stone, his cousins, and Grant. Grant and one cousin were home. One intruder beat Grant with a bat. The intruders stole jewelry, marijuana, and cash before fleeing. Stone arrived home, called his half-brother, “Junior,” and explained what happened. Junior, Stone, and Jones decided that Gardner was to blame. They lured Gardner outside; an altercation ensued. They claim Gardner produced a gun. Gardner was fatally shot. Stone turned himself in the next day, claiming that he shot to protect Junior. Stone was convicted of murder. Jones was separately convicted. In his habeas petition, Jones alleged that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective under the Strickland rule for failure to present Stone’s testimony. Stone had consistently stated that he alone shot Gardner. Stone’s story matched the physical evidence and some eyewitness testimony. Jones failed to submit an affidavit from Stone, as Illinois law requires. The state appellate court found the claim procedurally defaulted and rejected the claim on the merits, holding that failure to call Stone was “trial strategy.” The federal district court excused the procedural default based on new evidence of Jones’s actual innocence (Stone’s testimony) and concluded that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of relief. Failure to call Stone cannot reasonably be classified as mere trial strategy within the range of objectively reasonable professional judgments. View "Jones v. Calloway" on Justia Law

Whitaker is a transgender boy whose high school will not permit him to use the boys’ bathroom. He sued, alleging violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681, and the Equal Protection Clause. The defendants appealed denial of a motion to dismiss, arguing that appellate jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). The district court subsequently vacated its certification and the Seventh Circuit denied permission to appeal. The district court’s decision to withdraw certification destroyed jurisdiction to consider the petition under section 1292(b). View "Kenosha Unified School District v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

In August 2008, a Milwaukee County jury found Carpenter guilty of kidnapping, false imprisonment, four counts of second‐degree sexual assault, and four counts of first‐degree sexual assault. Carpenter was sentenced to 59 years’ imprisonment followed by 24 years of extended supervision. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Carpenter’s petition for review. He unsuccessfully sought state post-conviction relief. The district court rejected his federal habeas petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1). The petition had been filed almost seven months after the one-year period for filing had passed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Carpenter’s request for equitable tolling. Carpenter did not exercise reasonable diligence in pursuit of his rights. Although he filed two federal motions seeking an extension of time, he ignored the district court’s instructions regarding the proper way to seek such an extension. Carpenter failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his physical and mental health issues, even when combined with the other circumstances he classifies as extraordinary, “actually impaired his ability to pursue his claims.” View "Carpenter v. Douma" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, was in his fourteenth year at a Wisconsin medium-security prison when he was placed in a cell with DaSilva, who, 12 days later, sexually assaulted plaintiff in their cell. DaSilva was in prison for having sexually assaulted a woman. Both were classified as “medium security” inmates. DaSilva had committed eight violations of the prison’s rules in two years, including fighting, lying, theft, and use of intoxicants—but no sexual offenses. An investigation resulted in a criminal charge being lodged against DaSilva and an official notice that plaintiff and DaSilva were not to share a cell. Plaintiff’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to the danger of sexual assaulted by DaSilva, was dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to the practice of random assignment of cellmates. The court noted the prison’s compliance with the notification requirements of the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 15601–15609, and that there was no evidence that plaintiff expressed any concern about being vulnerable to sexual assault. The staff was apparently unaware that the plaintiff was perceived by other prisoners to be homosexual; nor was there any evidence of such a perception, apart from the plaintiff’s unsupported claim. View "Ramos v. Hamblin" on Justia Law

Viramontes was charged with mob action, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest, arising out of an incident at a Puerto Rican street festival in Chicago. The state court judge held, “I find the Defendant guilty of resisting a police officer and aggravated assault in that he took a substantial step and actively swung in the direction of the police officer and missed,” and that “after the Defendant swung … he did actively resist” and sentenced Viramontes to 100 days’ imprisonment. Viramontes then sued officers involved in the arrest and the city, alleging that the officers used excessive force. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants on Viramontes’s claims. Viramontes unsuccessfully moved for a new trial, arguing attorney misconduct and procedural and evidentiary errors. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Because the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim involved the incident for which Viramontes was convicted of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, the claim implicated the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey, that such a claim is barred if it “necessarily impl[ies] the invalidity of his conviction.” While the excessive‐force claim was not inconsistent with Viramontes’s conviction, the court properly instructed the jury that the facts underlying the conviction had to be taken as true. View "Viramontes v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law