Federal Civil Practice

Plaintiff, an inmate at a state correctional facility, filed a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act challenging the department of correction’s policy of prohibiting inmates from leading religious programs even when no outside leader or volunteer was available. Plaintiff also alleged that the cancelation of these programs breached a settlement agreement he had negotiated with the defendant to resolve a prior lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the RLUIPA claim. The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the breach of contract claim with regard to liability but relinquished supplement jurisdiction over plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the RLUIPA claim but vacated the order regarding the breach of contract claim, explaining that where a federal court relinquishes jurisdiction over a state law claim, it must let go of the entire claim, not just the remedy. (EASTERBROOK and SCUDDER, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he received deficient medical care while an inmate in a state prison. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants and plaintiff appealed, arguing that he never received the motions in the prison mail. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that even if it accepted plaintiff’s contention that he did not receive the motion by mail, under the “unusual circumstances” of the case he had sufficient construction notice of the motions and failed to challenge the merits of the district court’s decision. (HAMILTON and LEE, concurring)

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a contractual business relationship and agreed to submit any contractual disputes to mediation and, that if the mediation failed, the prevailing party would be entitled to attorneys’ fees. A dispute arose and EPI Technologies initially sought mediation but later filed a lawsuit in state court, which it lost. Technical security then filed a federal lawsuit seeking attorneys’ fees. The district court rejected that request and plaintiff appealed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, explaining that because the contract did not specify who must seek mediation and on what time table, it could not resolve the dispute based on the record before it and remanded for additional proceedings. (EASTERBROOK, concurring and HAMILTON, specially concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against various staff members at his prison alleging that they violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately indifferent to his health issues. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for recruited counsel. The Seventh Circuit found that plaintiff did not show a reasonable likelihood that recruited counsel would have made a difference in the outcome of his claims against most of the defendants but nevertheless reversed as to one defendant by accepting one of the defendant’s concession that the appeal had merit as to her (and the Seventh Circuit indicated its agreement with this concession). (EASTERBROOK and HAMILTON, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in Illinois state court, alleging that the exchange printed her credit card’s expiration date on purchase receipts in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and the exchange removed the case to federal court. In federal court, the plaintiff moved to remand and the defendant moved to dismiss with both parties focused on plaintiff’s lack of Article III standing. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, reasoning that the defendant did not need to assert a colorable defense to remove the action and that it had an absolute right to litigate in federal court. The Seventh Circuit agreed that defendant was not required to present a federal defense to remove the case, but found that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded with instructions for the case to be remanded to state court. (SCUDDER and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, concurring)

In a consolidated appeal, the defendant companies were subject to a civil enforcement action after they made millions of telemarketing calls to consumers who were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The district court found the defendants liable on summary judgment and awarded civil penalties and the defendants appealed both the liability findings as well as the damages award. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the liability findings, explaining that there was no genuine issue of material fact that their practices were prohibited by federal regulation. But the appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s decision to substitute an individual defendant’s estate upon his death because it was a penal action that did not survive the defendant’s death. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and KOLAR, concurring)

In a qui tam action, the plaintiff, on behalf of the United States and the State of Indiana, against HealthNet, a federally qualified health center that provides services to individuals at or below the poverty level. On appeal, the relator opposed a settlement between the state and the defendant as unfair because it reduced her share. The relator also contested the district court’s dismissal of count III of her complaint, which sought to enforce an alleged oral settlement agreement, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the relator lacked standing to bring Count III of the amended complaint and that the settlement between the state and the defendant was fair, adequate, and reasonable. (ST. EVE and PRYOR, concurring)