Federal Civil Practice

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the Telecommunications Act after defendant denied its requests for permits to install small cells and matching utility poles in a downtown plaza. The defendant had denied the permits citing aesthetic concerns, proximity to existing poles, and that it lacked authority to issue the permits because the plaza was leased to a private entity. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant city accepted the ruling. An intervening defendant, however, appealed and challenged the district court’s interpretation of the lease, arguing that the district court’s interpretation of the plaza as a public right-of-way violated the intervening defendant’s rights under the lease. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that the intervenor lacked Article III standing to bring the appeal and, as a result, the court did not have jurisdiction. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and PRYOR, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit under the Rackateer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act as well as state law against a company that performed alcohol testing that the plaintiffs were required to undergo as a condition of their employment. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants marketed their test as a reliable indicator of continuing alcohol use, but that the company had failed to confirm the test’s validity and reliability. The district court dismissed the RICO claim under FRCP 12(b)(6) and denied supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the allegations contained in the complaint failed to establish the proximate-cause requirement. (SCUDDER and KIRSCH, concurring)

Plaintiff, a transgender student, filed a lawsuit challenging her school district’s policy that required her to use the boys’ bathroom and locker room or a gender-neutral alternative alleging that the policy violated her rights under Title IX and the equal protection clause. Plaintiff also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the policy during litigation, which the district court granted. On appeal, the school district argued that the district court erred because it did not hold a hearing before issuing the preliminary injunction. The Seventh Circuit instead affirmed, explaining that an evidentiary hearing is not always required prior to the issuance of a preliminary injunction and, in this case, the school district neither requested a hearing nor identified material factual issues in need of resolution. (EASTERBROOK and KRISCH, concurring)

The Seventh Circuit addressed the procedural outcome of a case where the district court’s final judgment was silent on the disposition of some of the claims in the case, in this particular case the district court did not provide a disposition of the defendant’s counterclaims. The Seventh Circuit ultimately followed the district court’s proposed solution and remanded the case for correction of what it concluded was a clerical mistake in the judgment. 

Plaintiffs, a group of employees of the defendant, filed a lawsuit challenging the defendant’s Covid-19 vaccination mandate and masking requirements. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a viable claim for relief and plaintiffs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not err where the plaintiffs’ claims were either improperly preserved or inadequately pled and that the plaintiffs did not identify how filing an amended complaint would correct the deficiencies. (JACKSON-AKIWUMI and MALDONADO, concurring)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner and a pro se litigant, sued three medical providers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The question on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion when it stopped searching for recruited counsel and required defendant to continue litigating pro se. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that federal courts lack the power to compel an attorney to represent a civil litigant and that the district court made reasonable efforts to find a volunteer but was not required to search for a lawyer indefinitely. (EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, concurring)

A jury entered a monetary award against defendant and in favor of the plaintiff that included both compensatory and punitive damages for the unauthorized use of confidential information. In a prior appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the amount of the compensatory damages, but found that the punitive damages exceeded what was constitutionally permitted. After additional proceedings in the district court, the parties disputed the amount of post-judgment interest that defendant was required to pay and whether interest should be calculated from the initial judgment or from the revised judgment that was entered after the initial appeal. The district court held that it should be calculated from the revised judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that under the procedural posture of the case it was proper to calculate the amount of post-judgment interest owed from the original judgment. (BRENNAN and SCUDDER, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a corrections officer as well as the warden, deputy warden, and captain of the guards of a correctional facility where plaintiff was an inmate arising out of conduct that led to the correctional officer being convicted of sexual assault. The district court granted summary judgment for all of the other defendants, finding that none of them knew or had reason to suspect that the guard posed a danger to prisoners. The district court then entered a default judgment against the defendant and awarded monetary damages to plaintiff but disregarded evidence regarding lost future income for a failure to comply with evidentiary rules. Plaintiff then appealed and argued that the district court erred by not finding that the guard committed his wrongs in the course of his employment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that this issue was not before the court where the complaint did not name the guard’s employer as a party. The Seventh Circuit also denied a request by plaintiff’s counsel for the appellate court to remove unflattering language from the district court’s opinions as being beyond the appellate court’s authority. (BRENNAN and PRYOR, concurring)