Federal Civil Practice

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-prison officials’ motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights by withholding 93 days of potential good-time credit on ground that any issuance of additional good-time credit would have improperly reduced plaintiff’s sentence to below 180-day mandatory minimum. Record showed that plaintiff had sued wrong individuals in instant lawsuit inasmuch as none of named defendants had authority to either change or establish his sentence.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting motion for summary judgment by defendants-Village and its Police Chief in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that certain police officers used excessive force when arresting plaintiff in his parked car after plaintiff’s wife informed police that plaintiff was suicidal, was on medication and had access to weapons. Record failed to show that defendant-Police Chief had either played any role in plaintiff’s apprehension or supervised individuals who had apprehended plaintiff. As to plaintiff’s state law battery claim, Ct. similarly found that any harm to plaintiff could not be attributable to either defendant where Police Chief did not take part in plaintiff’s apprehension.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for want of prosecution plaintiff-federal employee’s action challenging EEOC determination that her claims of race, sex, age and disability discrimination were unsupported, where one year had elapsed without plaintiff taking any action in case after Dist. Ct. had denied her motion for judgment on pleadings. Ct. of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s claim that Local Rule 41.1, which permits dismissals for want of prosecution, was unconstitutional and noted that plaintiff had failed to comply with Circuit Rule 30(a), where plaintiff had failed to attach Dist. Ct.’s memoranda that explained basis for dismissal, as well as basis for denial of plaintiff’s subsequent ex parte motion to vacate said dismissal. Ct. also held that violation of Circuit Rule 30 was sanctionable and issued Rule to Show Cause requiring plaintiff’s counsel to show why he should not be subject to monetary sanctions and discipline for filing frivolous appeal and for violating Circuit Rule 30(a).

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing as time-barred plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging Wrongful Death Act and negligence claims arising out of defendants-prison officials' lack of medical treatment given to plaintiff while he was prisoner. Plaintiff's estate filed instant claims approximately 10 months after applicable two-year deadline. Ct. rejected plaintiff's claim that limitations period should have been tolled where sole beneficiary of plaintiff's estate was minor child.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-employee’s motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action, as well as action alleging violations of Wisc. Open Records Act and Right to Privacy statute, where plaintiff asserted that defendant-supervisor violated plaintiff’s First Amendment rights after plaintiff had voiced criticism of defendant on radio show where defendant disclosed inaccurate description of plaintiff’s disciplinary record on same show in retaliation for plaintiff’s prior comments. Plaintiff failed to establish any violation of Wisc. Open Records Act where there was impromptu disclosure of plaintiff’s disciplinary record without any request to inspect plaintiff’s disciplinary record. Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish violation of Wisc. Right to Privacy statute where information in plaintiff’s disciplinary record was available to public as matter of public record. Also, defendant’s statements about plaintiff’s disciplinary history were not actionable as retaliation under section 1983 where said statements did not constitute threat, coercion or intimidation suggesting future punishment.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City's motion to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff's equal protection rights by failing to protect plaintiff from ex-boyfriend who had history of harassing and assaulting plaintiff and eventually killed her even though defendant's police officials were aware of said harassment and had failed to either issue parole-violation warrant or arrest ex-boyfriend for violating outstanding order of protection. While complaint alleged that defendant failed to single out domestic violence victims as class for special protection, said allegations did not state valid cause of action since they amounted to nothing more than lawful allocation of limited police resources. Moreover, plaintiff failed to allege that defendant maintained intentional policy or practice of omitting police protection from female domestic violence victims as class. (Partial dissent filed.)

In action alleging that defendant-police officer used excessive force when shooting plaintiff-decedent after defendant received tip that plaintiff and others had robbed convenience store, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting evidence that plaintiff had five plastic bags containing cocaine in his mouth at time of shooting. While defendant was unaware of existence of cocaine at time of shooting, admission of said evidence was still proper where presence of cocaine lent credence to defendant's testimony that plaintiff was evasive when confronted by defendant at store and acted in manner that justified instant shooting. Moreover, plaintiff waived issue that admission of said evidence was overly prejudicial under Rule 403 where plaintiff refused limiting instruction as to admission of said evidence.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying motion by six airlines under Rule 24(b) to intervene in action by plaintiff-City of Chicago that challenged defendant’s order requiring plaintiff to return almost $6 million in disaster relief funds associated with snow removal at plaintiff’s airport where defendant determined that plaintiff could have obtained said funds from said airlines under User agreements airlines had with plaintiff that called for reimbursement of certain airport-related costs by said airlines. Airlines had standing to intervene where they contended that User agreement did not call for reimbursement of disaster-related airport costs, and where airlines’ claim pertained to common question at issue in underlying action where defendant asserted that airlines were responsible for said costs. Moreover, record did not support Dist. Ct.’s belief that adding six airlines to underlying lawsuit would render said lawsuit unmanageable where all six airlines held similar position in lawsuit.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Ill. Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and Ill. Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act where plaintiff alleged that packaging for defendants’ chewy bars improperly failed to disclose that said product contained form of fiber that was inferior to natural fiber and was actually harmful to certain consumers. Instant complaint was preempted by provision of Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act where instant labeling of chewy bars was compliant with federal regulations relating to health claims for dietary fiber. Moreover, disclaimers sought by plaintiff were not identical to labeling requirements imposed on such products by federal law.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-prison official's motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-prisoner alleging that defendant violated his First Amendment rights by filing meritless conduct report against plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff filing grievance against defendant for terminating him from his position as clerk in prison library. While basis for Dist. Ct.'s ruling was that plaintiff had failed to establish that challenged action would not have occurred but for constitutionally protected speech, plaintiff satisfied his burden by testifying that he told librarian about plaintiff's grievance one day prior to defendant's filing of instant conduct report that sought to justify plaintiff's firing. Accordingly, triable issue arose as to whether defendant could establish that filing of said report would have occurred regardless of plaintiff's grievance.