Weekly Case Digests November 2, 2020 November 6, 2020.

Byline: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF

7th Circuit Digests

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Anthony Mays, et al., v. Thomas J. Dart

Case No.: 20-1792

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and BRENNAN and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Preliminary Injunction Relief

Plaintiffsa class of detainees at the Cook County Jailbrought this action against Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart after the Jail reported an outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus that has sparked a global pandemic. Plaintiffs contend that the Sheriff has violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights by failing to provide them with reasonably safe living conditions as the pandemic rages. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including an injunction requiring the Sheriff to implement certain procedures related to social distancing, sanitation, diagnostic testing, and personal protective equipment ("PPE") to protect them from the virus for the duration of the pandemic.

After a hearing, the district court granted a temporary restraining order imposing several forms of relief, including but not limited to, mandates requiring the Sheriff to provide hand sanitizer and soap to all detainees and face masks to detainees in quarantine. The district court declined to order relief in several instances, though: most notably for our decision today, the district court rejected Plaintiffs' request to prohibit double celling and group housing arrangements to permit adequate social distancing.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved for entry of a preliminary injunction, requesting an extension of the relief the district court previously mandated in the temporary restraining order and, among other things, renewing their request for socially distanced housing. After another hearing, the district court switched course from its prior ruling and granted the renewed social distancing request, albeit with certain exceptions. The district court also granted the request for an extension of the relief included in the temporary restraining order. The Sheriff appealed.

We conclude that, in the course of its analysis regarding double celling and group housing, the district court committed three distinct legal errors: the district court failed to consider the Sheriff's conduct in its totality, failed to afford proper deference to the Sheriff's judgment in adopting policies necessary to ensure safety and security, and cited an incorrect legal standard when evaluating the likelihood that Plaintiffs' claims will succeed on their merits. Given these legal errors in evaluating the likelihood of success on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, we reverse the district court with respect to the portion of the preliminary injunction mandating socially distanced housing. Regarding the remaining relief, however, the district court made detailed factual findings, properly considered the Sheriff's conduct in its totality, and closely tailored the relief it ordered to the guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"). We therefore affirm all other aspects of the preliminary injunction.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Roland Pulliam

Case No.: 19-2162

Officials: DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge, KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Focus: Order Amending Opinion

The opinion issued in this case on September 3, 2020, is hereby AMENDED as follows: At line three of the second full paragraph on page seven of the slip opinion the word "affects" is stricken and replaced with the phrase: "does not affect".

Ordered

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Deon Patrick v. City of Chicago, et al.,

Case No.: 18-2759

Officials: SYKES, Chief Judge, and BAUER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Jury Instructions

Deon Patrick was convicted of double murder in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison. The convictions were vacated in 2014 and Patrick was released. The Cook County Circuit Court issued a certificate of innocence, see 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/2-702, and Patrick then filed suit for wrongful conviction against seven Chicago police officers and two prosecutors who investigated and prosecuted him. He alleged several constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state-law claims for malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy. The City of Chicago, also a defendant, stipulated to liability if any of its officers were found responsible for violating Patrick's rights. A jury exonerated the prosecutors and one officer but found six officers liable and awarded more than $13 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages in varying amounts.

The defendants raise several errors on appeal. First, they claim that the district judge should have dismissed the case as a sanction for Patrick's acknowledged perjury during discovery. Second, they challenge the judge's decision to admit the certificate of innocence at trial, arguing that it was unfairly prejudicial, either alone or in combination with certain statements by Patrick's lawyer during closing argument. Finally, they point to an error in the jury instruction on Patrick's due-process claim.

We affirm. The judge's ruling on the sanctions question was a reasonable exercise of his discretion, and it was not improper to admit the certificate of innocence into evidence at trial. The jury instruction contained an error, but it was harmless under the circumstances of this case.

Affirmed

Full Text

[divider]

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: A.F. Moore &amp...