Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Shawn Riley, a former prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against WSPF’s Health Services Manager, Jolinda Waterman, and Nurse Practitioner Sandra McArdle. Riley alleged that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Riley experienced chronic pain and sought specific medical treatments, including high-top shoes recommended by specialists. Despite receiving various treatments, including medications, physical therapy, and custom orthotics, Riley claimed that his pain persisted and that the defendants ignored specialist recommendations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and denied Riley’s motions to appoint counsel. The court found that the defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Riley’s medical needs, noting that they provided extensive medical care and followed many of the specialists' recommendations. The court also concluded that Riley’s requests for special shoes were reviewed and denied by the Special Needs Committee (SNC) and that the defendants' actions did not amount to deliberate indifference.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the defendants did not ignore the specialists' recommendations and provided adequate medical care. The court also found that the defendants' refusal to allow Riley to purchase shoes from outside the approved catalog did not constitute deliberate indifference. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of Riley’s motion to appoint counsel, determining that Riley was competent to litigate his case and that the case did not present complexities that necessitated appointed counsel. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Riley v. Waterman" on Justia Law

An inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution, who is a practicing Muslim, filed a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) against the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WDOC). He challenged WDOC's policy prohibiting inmates from leading religious programs when no outside religious leader or volunteer is available, claiming it resulted in unnecessary cancellations of religious programs. He also alleged that the cancellation of these programs breached a prior settlement agreement with WDOC.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment in favor of WDOC on the RLUIPA claim, finding that the policy was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest of maintaining prison safety and security. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the inmate on the state law breach-of-contract claim as to liability but relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the request for injunctive relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of WDOC on the RLUIPA claim, agreeing that the policy was the least restrictive means to ensure prison safety and security. However, the appellate court vacated the district court's partial judgment on the state law breach-of-contract claim. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction over the remedy portion of the claim while retaining jurisdiction over liability. The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether to retain or relinquish jurisdiction over the entire state law claim. View "West v Hoy" on Justia Law

Kevin Johnson, an inmate in Indiana, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he received inadequate dental and mental health care while incarcerated. The case was complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic and Johnson's frequent transfers between prisons in Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia, which disrupted his mail service. Johnson claimed he never received the defendants' summary judgment motions due to these mail issues.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana initially denied the defendants' summary judgment motions without prejudice, recognizing potential mail delivery problems. The court allowed the defendants to refile their motions and instructed them to notify the court if Johnson did not receive the filings. Despite these measures, Johnson did not respond to the refiled motions within the given 28-day period. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case. Johnson later filed a motion to vacate the judgment, asserting he never received the refiled motions, but the district court denied this motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the procedural complexities but focused on whether Johnson had constructive notice of the summary judgment motions. The court concluded that Johnson had constructive notice because he received the district court's order resetting the briefing schedule and instructing him on how to proceed. The court found no substantive or procedural error in the district court's decision and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants. View "Johnson v Purdue" on Justia Law

Clarence Lewis, an inmate at Hill Correctional Center, sued various medical staff members, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his health issues, violating the Eighth Amendment. Lewis claimed misdiagnosis and mistreatment of diabetes, COPD, irritable bowel syndrome, and Hepatitis C. He also contended that his grievance about a delay in diabetes medication was not properly addressed.The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Lewis's motions for recruited counsel, stating he could represent himself and obtain relevant documents. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Sood, Dr. Bautista, Nurse Vollmer, and Administrator Lindor, concluding no reasonable juror could find deliberate indifference. The court also granted summary judgment for Dr. Paul, citing claim splitting due to a similar prior lawsuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Dr. Sood, Dr. Bautista, Nurse Vollmer, and Administrator Lindor, finding no reasonable likelihood that recruited counsel would have changed the outcome. The court noted that Lewis's disagreement with his diagnoses and treatments did not constitute deliberate indifference. As for Administrator Lindor, her limited role and the lack of harm from the medication delay further supported the judgment.However, the court vacated the judgment in favor of Dr. Paul, agreeing with Lewis that the district court's application of claim splitting was erroneous. Dr. Paul had raised this defense too late, effectively acquiescing to the claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding Dr. Paul, with the district court advised to reconsider Lewis's request for recruited counsel if the claim proceeds to trial. View "Lewis v Sood" on Justia Law

Davis sued, asserting malpractice and breach of contract claims, and federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Civil Rights Act claims, arising out of Fenton’s legal representation of Davis in a mortgage foreclosure action in which Davis lost her home. Davis alleged that Fenton’s representation of her was deficient and that he had targeted her for deficient representation because of her race. Because Fenton’s contract with Davis required the parties to arbitrate any disputes, the district judge ordered the suit “stayed pending arbitration.: Arbitrators awarded Davis $82,528.10 in damages for malpractice but denied her other claims. Fenton sued in Illinois state court to have the award vacated. Davis moved the federal court to reinstate her suit, to confirm the award under 9 U.S.C. 9, and to permit her to file a new FHA claim, accusing Fenton of retaliating against her for having filed her original claim. Fenton failed to appear; the judge entered a default judgment granting the motion. The court refused to vacate the default and remand to state court but dismissed the retaliation claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The federal judge had jurisdiction over the case when it was filed; the order staying the case, subject to reinstatement, retained jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitral award. The court affirmed the dismissal; filing a lawsuit cannot be considered retaliation, except in extraordinary circumstances. View "Davis v. Fenton" on Justia Law

Dr. Parungao began practicing surgery at Galesburg Cottage Hospital in 2006. He accepted employment with Knox Clinic, which supplies doctors for the hospital. Knox told Dr. Parungao in 2013 that it was discharging him without cause, as allowed under his employment agreement. Parungao believes that the hospital orchestrated this discharge to harm his career. He asserts that before Knox fired him, the hospital’s medical executive committee manipulated the peer-review process to insinuate that he had performance problems and make it difficult for him to secure future employment. Parungao later resigned from Galesburg and sought other employment, but alleges that he was thwarted in those efforts by the hospital and its doctors. Based on those events, Parungao filed a suit against the hospital that he voluntarily dismissed, was denied permission to refile the case under seal with a fictitious name, then filed another state court suit against the chief of medical staff, Piper for defamation. The Piper suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Parungao’s federal suit against the hospital was subsequently dismissed as barred by res judicata. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the federal suit did not mention Piper, the elements of privity, identity of causes of action, and finality were met. View "Parungao v. Community Health Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The “Old Mill” in Belgrade, Serbia, was confiscated, allegedly from plaintiffs' ancestors, in 1945, without compensation, and later sold to private developers. Prigan now holds title and, with Carlson, renovated the Old Mill. The property is now a four‐star Radisson Blu Hotel complex. Carlson is the licensor of the Radisson Blu brand and participates in the hotel’s management. Ten years before the hotel's construction, plaintiffs began trying to recover their rights over the Old Mill. In 2009 a Serbian court annulled the declaration that plaintiffs’ family were enemies of the state. They sued Carlson, alleging trespass, conversion, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Carlson agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Serbian Restitution Agency, which was empowered by Serbia's 2011 “Law on Property Restitution and Compensation” to determine rights in the property, including improvements. The judge dismissed the suit on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the plaintiffs produced no documentary evidence that they have inherited the land and that the dispute is appropriate for the Serbian Agency . Although one plaintiff is an American citizen and a resident of Illinois, the other is a citizen of Canada but a resident of Paris; no aspect of the dispute has any relation to Illinois. View "Veljkovic v. Carlson Hotels, Inc." on Justia Law

Appeal of dismissal of challenge to city’s order requiring that police officers cover tattoos was rendered moot by city’s revocation of the order. Plaintiffs, military veterans employed as Chicago police officers, have tattoos relating to their military service and religion. The department issued an order without prior notice, requiring all officers on duty or otherwise “representing” the department to cover their tattoos. The announced reason was to “promote uniformity and professionalism.” Plaintiffs complained that covering their tattoos with clothing caused overheating in warm weather and that cover-up tape irritated their skin. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that the order violated theirs’ First Amendment rights, attorneys’ fees and costs, and “other legal and/or equitable relief.” Without addressing class certification and before discovery, the court dismissed the suit on the merits, finding that wearing tattoos was a “personal expression,” not an effort at communicating with the public on matters of public concern, and was not protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, the police union filed a grievance. An arbitrator ruled that the order violated the collective bargaining agreement. The city conceded and agreed to reimburse officers for expenses in complying with the invalidated policy. The Seventh Circuit directed that the judgment vacated as moot. View "Medici v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Dead Man’s Act barred testimony regarding now-deceased employer’s response to being told employee would file a worker’s compensation claim. Plata sued Eureka under 42 U.S.C. 2000e, claiming that he was fired in retaliation for having filed such a claim. He claimed that Bittner, Eureka’s owner, told him he was “done” after he told Bittner that he intended to file the claim. Bittner died suddenly, leaving Plata the only witness to the conversation. Eureka cited the Illinois Dead Man’s Act, 735 ILCS 5/8-301, which “forbids a party to a suit by or against a firm to testify about any conversation with a dead agent of the firm, unless a living agent of the firm was also present.” Federal Rule of Evidence 601 states that “in a civil case, state law governs the witness’s competency regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed that Plata could testify that he had told Bittner that he intended to file a claim, but could not testify to Bittner’s response. The courts rejected the federal claims as time-barred and unsupported by evidence, noting that Plata was a difficult litigant, whose lawyer was allowed to withdraw after Plata refused to respond to discovery requests. View "Plata v. Eureka Locker, Inc." on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit directed the district court to dismiss, as moot, a lawsuit by a Chicago-area family-owned firm, challenging the “contraception mandate” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 119. Ozinga regards certain of the contraceptives covered by the mandate as potential abortifacients, the use of which is proscribed by its owners’ and managers’ religious tenets, and sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, in 2013. The government had established an accommodation for certain religious employers that provided for alternate means of ensuring employee access to the contraceptive services specified by the mandate without payment or direct involvement by an objecting employer; the accommodation was not then available to for-profit employers like Ozinga. In light of Seventh Circuit precedent, the district court granted Ozinga a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court subsequently decided, in “Hobby Lobby” (2014), that the contraception mandate, as applied to closely-held private firms whose owners objected on religious grounds to contraceptives covered by the mandate, substantially burdened the exercise of religion by those owners and their companies, in view of the fines to which they were subject for noncompliance. The government then extended the accommodation to private employers, including Ozinga, rendering its suit moot. View "Ozinga v. Price" on Justia Law