Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Mata fired shots, killing two men and injuring another. Chicago police arrested Mata that evening. The following day, after receiving his Miranda rights and saying that he understood them, Mata gave a videotaped statement: Mata explained that he heard Mares calling his name. He turned around and saw two men holding Mares while other men surrounded him. Mata took out his gun and fired. The men backed away, but one man reached for his pocket. Mata fired five more shots toward the group, then ran toward his car. The men were walking with their backs to him when he fired; he never saw any of them with a weapon. An officer read Mata his Miranda rights again on tape. Mata said he understood his rights and wanted to make the statement; the police had treated him “well and fairly,” and he gave the statement “freely and voluntarily” without threats or promises by the police.Defense counsel moved to suppress Mata’s statements, claiming that Mata was subjected to abuse by the police for two days before being given any Miranda warnings. No hearing was held on the motion. Convicted on two counts of first-degree murder and one count of aggravated battery with a firearm, Mata sought habeas relief, arguing counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a hearing on the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition. Mata procedurally defaulted his claim and did not show cause to excuse the default. View "Mata v. Baker" on Justia Law

On the night of May 6, 2020, Lisby, eight months pregnant, and Lewis walked along the shoulder of State Road 37 in Indianapolis to get back to their motel. Indianapolis Officer Henderson was driving to work in his police vehicle on the same road, at 78 miles per hour, 33 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. He illegally changed lanes over a solid white line and his vehicle partially crossed the fog line onto the shoulder of the road. Henderson struck Lisby without seeing her while still traveling at 55 miles per hour. Lisby was transported to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Lisby and Lewis’s child was born at the hospital by emergency Cesarian section but died shortly after delivery. Henderson was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a police officer when he killed Lisby.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Henderson. The complaint failed to plead sufficient facts plausibly suggesting that Henderson acted with the criminal recklessness necessary to establish a due process violation. View "Lisby v. Henderson" on Justia Law

Hunter was housed in a general-population wing of “Unit H” at Redgranite Wisconsin state prison. Patterson, Hunter’s cellmate March-December 2017, was regarded as a “lifer” and a “violent individual.” On multiple occasions, Patterson told Hunter that he would beat him while he slept. Hunter communicated Patterson’s threats to Mueske, the Unit H supervisor with authority over housing assignments. Hunter told Officer Walker about Patterson’s threats. At Walker’s suggestion, Hunter filled out an Inmate Complaint form, dated August 9. Walker typically notifies his superiors and drafts an incident report when he learns of threats between inmates, but he did not do so. Wilcox decided to move Patterson out of Unit H on December 6, 2017, but not due to Hunter’s complaints.On the day of Patterson’s move, Hunter approached Patterson, purportedly to say goodbye. Hunter claims that Patterson flew into a rage, accusing Hunter of causing Patterson’s reassignment. Patterson testified that Hunter called him various derogatory terms, including the N-word. Patterson violently battered Hunter and stomped on his head, causing Hunter permanent injuries and triggering his PTSD from his time in the military. The altercation was captured on video. In Hunter’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court granted Mueske and Walker summary judgment. Hunter offered no facts from which a reasonable jury could find that Walker acted with deliberate indifference or that Mueske’s conduct caused his injury. View "Hunter v. Mueske" on Justia Law

A kitchen supervisor directed Balle, an Illinois state prisoner, to carry near-boiling water across a wet, damaged floor in a plastic five-gallon bucket. His foot caught in a hole, and he fell down. The water splashed on him and caused severe burns. Balle sued several prison officials, claiming they violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to the dangerous kitchen conditions. The district court dismissed some of Balle’s claims at the pleading stage and granted summary judgment on the others.The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part. The record lacks sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to the subjective knowledge of two defendants. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Balle, a reasonable jury could conclude that the kitchen conditions represented an objectively serious danger to inmates, but gaps in the record prevent a jury from inferring that the two actually knew about the conditions that made the kitchen seriously dangerous–that inmates had to carry scalding water across the damaged floor. The court reversed in part, reinstating the claim against the kitchen supervisor, who required the inmates to carry the scalding water. The court affirmed the denial of a motion to recruit counsel. View "Balle v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Fitzgerald worked for Roncalli Catholic High School as a guidance counselor and Co-Director of Guidance for 14 years and earned years of stellar performance reviews. In 2018, the school declined to renew her one-year employment agreement, explaining that her same-sex marriage was contrary to the Catholic faith. Fitzgerald was placed on administrative leave. Her Co-director of Guidance, Starkey, informed Roncalli that she too was in a same-sex marriage. The school did not renew Starkey’s employment agreement. Fitzgerald and Starkey brought separate lawsuits, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII.In both cases, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The school fired Fitzgerald because of her same-sex marriage and Title VII prohibits this kind of sex discrimination, but the Supreme Court has held that employment discrimination suits are barred “when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.” Fitzgerald played a crucial role on the Administrative Council, which was responsible for at least some of Roncalli’s daily ministry, education, and operations and “helped develop the criteria used to evaluate guidance counselors, which included religious components like assisting students in faith formation and attending church services.” Fitzgerald held herself out as a minister. View "Fitzgerald v. Roncalli High School, Inc." on Justia Law

Marvin’s mother called the police to perform a wellness check; she thought Marvin, age 21, was suicidal. St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Deputies arrived at Marvin’s home and found his mother in the driveway with a bleeding lip. She stated that Marvin had hit her with a chair. The officers approached the house to speak with Marvin, who declined to exit the house. During the confrontation, the deputies saw Marvin’s father remove a box cutter from Marvin’s pocket. They pulled him from the doorway and wrestled him to the ground. While he resisted, they tased him twice and struck him several times. Marvin sued the deputies for unlawful entry and excessive force. Marvin admitted that he was uncooperative but claimed he was not threatening or violent and that he suffered a concussion and a broken toe.Marvin brought claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the deputies for unlawful entry and excessive force, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the unlawful entry claims against Officer Corban, who had not helped pull Marvin from his house, and the excessive force claims against Officer Lawson-Rulli, who was not involved in tasing or hitting Marvin. Corban and Holcomb’s use of force was reasonable as a matter of law. The court also affirmed a defense verdict on Marvin’s unlawful entry claims against Holcomb and Lawson-Rulli. View "Marvin v. Holcomb" on Justia Law

In 2012, Horton was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm crimes. Horton had been convicted of four prior state drug felonies. The court imposed three concurrent life sentences. Horton’s direct appeal and collateral relief motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255, failed. Under 2255(h) a successive motion is permitted only if it contains “newly discovered evidence” of innocence or is based on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” Horton filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, citing the “saving clause,” 28 U.S.C. 2255(e); a 2241 motion “shall not be entertained” unless the remedy by motion under 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”The Seventh Circuit previously held (Davenport) that 2255 is “inadequate or ineffective”— and 2241 is available—when the limits on successive 2255 motions bar relief and the prisoner’s claim is based on a new interpretation of a criminal statute that was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent. Horton's Davenport claim challenged his sentences based on the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision.In the interim, the Supreme Court decided Jones v. Hendrix, (2022): The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy 2255’s conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all." The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, abrogating Davenport. View "Horton v. Lovett" on Justia Law

Sanders was convicted in 2006 of firearms offenses. The court imposed an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, based on three prior convictions, including one for Illinois residential burglary. His direct appeal and 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for collateral relief failed. Sanders has three times unsuccessfully sought permission to file a successive 2255 motion. A successive motion is permitted only if it contains “newly discovered evidence” of innocence or is based on a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.”Sanders filed a 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition, citing the “saving clause.” 28 U.S.C. 2255(e); A federal prisoner’s 2241 motion “shall not be entertained” unless the remedy by motion under 2255 “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Seventh Circuit precedent (Davenport) applied the saving-clause gateway to habeas claims premised on a new interpretation of a criminal statute that was previously foreclosed by circuit precedent. Sanders’s Davenport claim challenged his ACCA-enhanced sentence based on the Supreme Court’s 2016 Mathis decision.The district judge denied relief. The Supreme Court held, in Jones v. Hendrix, (2022): The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy the 2255 conditions does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause. It means that he cannot bring it at all. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief, abrogating Davenport. View "Sanders v. Joseph" on Justia Law

While serving a 55-year sentence for murder, Love assaulted a correctional officer, resulting in state convictions for felony battery. The Indiana Department of Correction also found Love guilty of violating prison rules and imposed sanctions including revocation of 5,700 days of his accrued good time credit, which extended Love’s release date by more than 15 years. Love unsuccessfully pursued prison appeals. The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Love procedurally defaulted his constitutional claims and forfeited them by failing to present them in administrative proceedings or the district court.One argument concerned Executive Directive 17-09, under which the Department must revoke all accrued good time credit from inmates found guilty of qualifying offenses. There is no additional hearing; the inmate is not provided an opportunity to argue why revocation of less time is appropriate. Love argued that the Department cannot, consistent with due process, predetermine how it will use its discretionary power over sanctions without first considering arguments in mitigation. Love also argued that Directive 17-09 is facially arbitrary in tying punishment to the amount of good time credit an inmate has rather than the severity of his misconduct. Love offered two examples where other inmates presumably should have been punished in accordance with the Directive but were allegedly shown leniency instead. View "Love v. Vanihel" on Justia Law

In 2007, Hogsett was convicted of crimes, including being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The court found that Hogsett was an armed career criminal, with three prior convictions for violent felonies, and sentenced him to 295 months. In 2021, the Supreme Court (Borden) interpreted “violent felony” in 924(e) to exclude crimes that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness. Hogsett sought to challenge his sentence under Borden. To collaterally attack a conviction or sentence, a federal prisoner files a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, not a habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. 2241. Hogsett had filed a 2255 motion in 2010. A prisoner can only file another 2255 motion in two circumstances: newly discovered evidence sufficient to establish innocence or a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. Hogsett argued that he was eligible to file under 2255(e), the “saving clause,” which applies when “the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”The Seventh Circuit ordered the dismissal of Hogsett’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court cited the Supreme Court’s intervening Jones holding: “The inability of a prisoner with a statutory claim to satisfy” 2255(h)’s requirements “does not mean that he can bring his claim in a habeas petition under the saving clause … he cannot bring it at all.” Borden is a statutory interpretation decision. View "Hogsett v. Lillard" on Justia Law