By: Derek Hawkins//December 30, 2019//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Rex A. Frederickson v. Tizoc Landeros, Detective
Case No.: 18-1605
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE, Circuit Judges
Focus: Equal Protection Violation
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that state actors have, at a minimum, a rational basis for treating similarly situated people differently. Rex Frederickson alleges that Officer Tizoc Landeros prevented him from updating his Illinois sexual offender registration and otherwise used his official position to harass Frederickson purely out of personal dislike. Without an updated registration, Frederickson was unable to move from Joliet, Illinois, to nearby Bolingbrook.
The district court found that Frederickson had put forth enough evidence to allow a jury to find that Landeros had singled Frederickson out for unfavorable treatment, and that in so doing Landeros was motivated solely by personal animus and thus lacked a rational basis for his actions. Frederickson v. Landeros, No. 11 C 3484, 2018 WL 1184730 (N.D. Ill. March 7, 2018). The district court also held, relying on our decision in Hanes v. Zurick, 578 F.3d 491, 496 (7th Cir. 2009), that “Frederickson’s equal protection right to ‘police protection uncorrupted by personal animus’ [was] clearly established.” 2018 WL 1184730 at *8 (quoting from Hanes). Relying on these two conclusions, the district court denied Landeros’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as it applied to Frederickson’s equal protection theory. It also found that Landeros was entitled to qualified immunity on Frederickson’s theories based on a substantive due process right to intrastate travel and an alleged procedural due process right to register under the Illinois sex offender legislation. Frederickson did not cross‐appeal from the latter two findings, and so we need not address them. Landeros filed a timely appeal from the partial denial of qualified immunity. We conclude that the district court’s order must be affirmed.
Affirmed