Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Reives, who is Black, worked for the Illinois State Police (ISP) from 1989 until he retired in 2018. In 2016, he had been suspended for 60 days for violating internal rules of conduct prohibiting false statements in connection with his employment. The same year, Reives’s supervisors downgraded his ratings on his performance evaluation, leading him to receive a lower ranking on a list of officers certified for promotion. Reives sued, alleging that these two incidents constituted race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for ISP. When a plaintiff alleges that an employer disciplined him more harshly than his comparator, the most relevant similarities are those between the employees’ alleged misconduct, performance standards, and disciplining supervisor. Reives and his comparator, Kim, engaged in different misconduct and were punished for violating different rules. Reives cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas approach. Reives’s claim also fails under a more straightforward evaluation of the evidence. Reives was still certified for promotion in 2016 and did not explain how his lower ranking affected his promotion prospects. View "Reives v. Illinois State Police" on Justia Law

Johnson entered state custody in 2007. His history of prison misconduct led to his transfer in 2013 to serve accumulated segregation (solitary confinement). Johnson suffers from serious mental illness, including depression and bipolar disorder, and he was on crisis watch nine times while in segregation. Mental health professionals regularly monitored his condition and treated him with medication, which was periodically adjusted. Johnson’s misconduct continued in segregation, especially when he refused to take his medication. Many of his violations were serious enough to trigger penalties of 30-90 days of no “yard” access.Johnson sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging in his pro se complaint that the cumulative yard restrictions (totaling about three years, with 24 months consecutive) violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. He also complained of unsanitary conditions, poor ventilation, summertime heat in his cell, excessive noise, and inadequate mental health treatment. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. Johnson obtained counsel and cited research on the harmful effects of solitary confinement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Johnson never sought relief for the time he spent in solitary confinement; he sued over his loss of yard access, unhealthy conditions in his cell, and his mental-health treatment. The record is entirely undeveloped on the issue of the effects of prolonged solitary confinement. Claims not raised in the district court are waived. View "Johnson v. Prentice" on Justia Law

Karr was convicted of rape and domestic battery for his assaults on A.P., his former girlfriend. Karr then fired his attorney, hired a new one, and pursued claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Those claims were rejected by the Indiana trial court and on direct appeal. Karr then sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his petition. The court rejected an argument that counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate A.P.’s history of medication use, and introduced no evidence about whether Karr used his cellphone during his second assault so that A.P.’s trial testimony could have been impeached. The jury had an ample basis on which to find A.P. credible. There is no reasonable probability that any evidence Karr references would have affected the trial’s outcome. Because Karr did not raise six additional claims in Indiana state court, he procedurally defaulted them. Those procedural defaults are not excusable under a narrow equitable exception delineated by the Supreme Court, which does not apply to “insubstantial defaulted claims such as the ones Karr presents” and does not apply in this procedural posture. View "Karr v. Sevier" on Justia Law

Bayon attempted to rob an Indianapolis gas station, then fled the scene in a vehicle. Numerous police officers gave chase. A high-speed pursuit through residential areas ensued. Officer Brink executed a maneuver that resulted in the Traverse spinning and crashing into a tree. Using a loudspeaker, Officer Myers ordered Bayon to exit the vehicle multiple times. Bayon took several minutes to exit the vehicle, saw 10-15 police officers, and heard commands to put his hands up and to show identification. He claims he reached for his wallet. The officers shot him. Three bullets hit Bayon; he fell face-first to the ground. Bayon claims that after he was rolled over, an officer said, “Oh, my God, he doesn’t have a weapon.” The officers claim that Bayon took several aggressive steps toward Myers and reached for something near his waistband. Two officers saw a black, hard object, and thought it was a gun. Another officer pulled “a car jack handle,” out of his pant leg.In Bayon’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court denied the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity, concluding that the facts were in dispute. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The parties’ claims are inseparable from disputed facts. View "Bayon v. Berkebile" on Justia Law

See is a law-enforcement officer for the Illinois Gaming Board, which often hires State Police officers. As a union representative, See expressed concern that the Board’s promotion policies gave State Police employees unfair advantages. See then began to exhibit signs of paranoia. He complained to Board management that his supervisor was spreading malicious rumors about him to intimidate and scare him. He said that his wife was “seriously afraid” that the State Police would harm them. Management became concerned about his mental stability and placed him on administrative leave pending an examination of his fitness for duty. A few weeks later See passed the examination and returned to work.See filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights and discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 12112, by requiring him to undergo a medical examination without a job-related justification. The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Even if See established a prima facie case of retaliation, the defendants offered a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for placing him on leave and requiring a fitness-for-duty examination: they were genuinely concerned about his mental health. See presented no evidence that this reason was pretextual. See is an armed law enforcement officer, so the possibility of mental instability posed a serious public-safety concern the examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity. View "See v. Illinois Gaming Board" on Justia Law

Lange, who is deaf and communicates primarily in American Sign Language (ASL), sued the cities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD”), 42 U.S.C. 12131, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, because their police officers did not provide a qualified ASL interpreter for her during four interactions but relied on written communications and on Lange’s children, ages 14 and 17, to act as interpreters. Lange apparently never requested an ASL interpreter. A jury returned a verdict for the cities. The district court then awarded $1,000 in costs to the cities.The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Lange was not prejudiced by the jury instructions. The court acknowledged that the ADA generally prohibits the use of minor children as interpreters but instructed the jury that the police could rely on “the decision of a private citizen to use his or her own child to facilitate her communication.” The court upheld the district court’s decisions in allowing testimony about Lange’s encounters with police other than the four interactions at issue and in awarding a reduced amount of costs to the cities despite Lange’s apparent indigency. View "Lange v. City of Oconto" on Justia Law

Garcia was convicted of attempted homicide, recklessly endangering safety, and aggravated battery based on a drive-by shooting that left one victim seriously injured. Garcia’s post-conviction counsel unsuccessfully sought a new trial claiming that trial counsel’s failure to request jury instructions on lesser-included offenses amounted to ineffective assistance. Garcia filed a consolidated appeal and post-conviction order. In the meantime, the state acknowledged that the reckless endangerment counts were lesser-included offenses; the judge modified the judgment, which was affirmed as modified.Garcia filed another post-conviction motion, raising new claims of ineffective assistance. Wisconsin rules require a defendant to raise all available claims for relief in his first post-conviction motion or on direct appeal unless the defendant can demonstrate a “sufficient reason.” Garcia needed to allege specific facts that would establish his post-conviction counsel’s ineffectiveness, including allegations showing that the defaulted claims were “clearly stronger” than the issues post-conviction counsel chose to present.After Wisconsin courts rejected his petition, Garcia sought federal habeas relief. The district judge rejected the state’s procedural objection but agreed that even if counsel’s performance was deficient, the mistakes were not prejudicial. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The state appellate court rejected Garcia’s second post-conviction motion based on failure to satisfy the pleading standard for overcoming procedural default. That independent and adequate state procedural basis barred federal review unless Garcia can establish cause for and prejudice from his default. He has not done so. View "Garcia v. Cromwell" on Justia Law

The Indiana Department of Correction places offenders in restrictive housing when their continued presence in the general population would pose a serious threat to life, property, and others, or the security and orderly operation of a correctional facility. Crouch has been an Indiana inmate for about a decade. In February 2016, Crouch was assigned to disciplinary restrictive status housing due to disciplinary code violations. Crouch spent almost four years in solitary confinement. Throughout this period, Crouch received dozens of classification and status reports. Crouch did not appeal any of these reports; before entering solitary confinement he was aware of the process to appeal and had done so. Crouch also received regular 30-day reviews. Crouch did not appeal those reviews. Inmates also may raise concerns through an offender grievance or a disciplinary appeal; both processes are explained to inmates during orientation and copies of the policies are available at the facilities’ law libraries.Crouch sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his Due Process rights because of his “prolonged placement in solitary confinement” which “did not receive meaningful review.” The district court dismissed because Crouch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a federal claim about prison conditions. View "Crouch v. Brown" on Justia Law

Price had been convicted of felony aggravated battery. A gunshop employee ran a background check after Price placed an order, then contacted ATF Agent Clancy, and gave Price an inoperable magazine shell. Price purchased ammunition. Price later complained the magazine did not fit “his firearm.” Clancy impersonated a store employee for Price’s return and contacted the Indiana Department of Correction. Parole officers arrived at the store and searched Price's vehicle, as authorized by his parole agreement. They found a (stolen) loaded pistol. Clancy and the parole officers drove Price to his residence. The officers searched, discovered ammunition, and notified Clancy. Clancy obtained and executed a search warrant for the home, a van parked in the driveway, and an outbuilding. Officers found a firearm and ammunition. A rifle was found in the van.Indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), Price unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrantless parole searches violated the Fourth Amendment because the parole officers acted as a “stalking horse” for the ATF, allowing Clancy to circumvent typical warrant and probable cause requirements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The parole officers complied with the parole agreement; they had reasonable cause to believe Price had violated his parole conditions. The court also rejected arguments that there was insufficient evidence that Price had constructively possessed the guns and challenges to sentencing enhancements for multiple firearms, a stolen firearm, and obstruction of justice. View "United States v. Price" on Justia Law

Burkhart, the CEO of ASC, a private company that operates Indiana nursing homes and long-term care facilities, orchestrated an extensive conspiracy exploiting the company’s operations and business relationships for personal gain. Most of the funds involved in the scheme came from Medicare and Medicaid. After other defendants pled guilty and Burkhart’s brother agreed to testify against him, Burkhart pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and healthcare fraud (18 U.S.C. 1349); conspiracy to violate the AntiKickback Statute (18 U.S.C. 371); and money laundering (18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)). With a Guidelines range of 121-151 months, Burkhart was sentenced to 114 months’ imprisonment.Burkhart later filed a habeas action, contending that his defense counsel, Barnes & Thornburg provided constitutionally deficient representation because the firm also represented Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, a victim of the fraudulent scheme. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. While the firm labored under an actual conflict of interest, that conflict did not adversely affect Burkhart’s representation. Nothing in the record shows that the firm improperly shaded its advice to induce Burkhart to plead guilty; the advice reflected a reasonable response to the “dire circumstances” facing Burkhart. The evidence of Burkhart’s guilt was overwhelming. View "Burkhart v. United States" on Justia Law