Weekly Case Digests – January 27, 2019 – January 31, 2020

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Digests

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Thomas Dennis, Jr., v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 19-1654

Officials: FLAUM, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: FDCPA Violation

The plaintiff Thomas Dennis received a debt collection letter listing “original” and “current” creditors, which he claims violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The FDPCA requires that a debt collector send the debtor a written notice containing “the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed.” Because the letter accurately and clearly identified the creditor to whom Dennis’s debt was owed, we affirm the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Elvira Garcia-Arce v. William P. Barr

Case No.: 19-1453; 19-2312

Officials: FLAUM, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Immigration – Removal Order – Abuse of Discretion

Elvira Garcia‐Arce seeks withholding of removal to Mexico under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture. She has filed two petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”). We deny both petitions. As to the first petition, the Board’s decision affirming the denial of Garcia‐ Arce’s withholding application was supported by substantial evidence. As to the second petition, the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Garcia‐Arce’s prior counsel’s assistance was not so deficient that Garcia‐Arce was prevented from reasonably presenting her case.

Petition Denied

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Jose Antonio Simental-Galarza v. William P. Barr

Case No.: 19-2126

Officials: RIPPLE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Immigration – Removal Order

Jose Antonio Simental-Galarza, a 36-year-old citizen of Mexico, seeks relief from removal, contending that he is a battered spouse and would suffer extreme hardship if removed. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Simental-Galarza did not qualify for relief because he did not establish hardship. Because the IJ and Board adequately evaluated the relevant factors and the evidence that Simental-Galarza presented, we deny the petition for review.

Petition Denied

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Gregory L. Barnes v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, et al.

Case No.: 19-1781

Officials: RIPPLE, SYKES, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Title VII Violation – Discrimination Claim

Gregory Barnes, who is African American, sued the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and Mark Donovan, a former university administrator, for racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Donovan promoted a white applicant instead of Barnes. Barnes contests the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Because Barnes did not present evidence that Donovan’s stated reason for selecting this applicant was a pretext for discrimination, we affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Rachel Ybarra v. City of Chicago, et al.

Case No.: 19-1435

Officials: FLAUM, RIPPLE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Probable Cause – Wrongful Death Claim

Rachel Ybarra brought a lawsuit against the City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department Commander Francis Valadez and Officer Monica Reyes for excessive force and wrongful death based on the shooting death of her son, Rafael Cruz. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the officers could have reasonably believed, based on Cruz’s involvement in a drive-by shooting and extremely reckless driving, that Cruz posed an imminent threat to others if allowed to escape from the parking lot where they shot him.

We affirm. Under the circumstances present in this case, the officers had probable cause to believe that Cruz posed a threat of serious physical harm to others in the immediate vicinity. It was therefore not unreasonable for the officers to prevent Cruz’s escape by using deadly force.

Affirmed

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals Digests

WI Court of Appeals – District II

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Christopher L. Jackson

Case No.: 2018AP1820-CR

Officials: Neubauer, C.J., Reilly, P.J., and Gundrum, J.

Focus:  Court Error – Evidentiary Hearing

Christopher L. Jackson appeals from a judgment of conviction and an order denying his postconviction motions. He contends that the circuit court erred in (1) denying his request for a lesser-included jury instruction; (2) addressing a question of the jury outside the presence of the parties; and (3) denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Monroe County v. D.J.

Case No.: 2019AP1133

Officials: GRAHAM, J.

Focus: Due Process Violation

D.J. appeals an involuntary commitment order, which was entered by the circuit court in favor of Monroe County after a jury found that D.J. met the statutory criteria for commitment. D.J. contends that he was denied procedural due process, and further, that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that he was “dangerous” as defined in WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(a)2. I conclude that D.J. forfeited his due process argument by failing to timely raise it in the circuit court, and that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient. Accordingly, I affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Antonio Scarbrough

Case No.: 2018AP2285-CR

Officials: Brash, P.J., Kessler and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Antonio Scarbrough appeals a judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of three felonies. He also appeals an order denying his postconviction motion. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present the testimony of a witness who, he believes, would have described an exculpatory statement that Scarbrough made to a third party. Alternatively, he claims that he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice because the jury did not hear his allegedly exculpatory statement. Because the exculpatory statement at issue would have constituted inadmissible hearsay, we reject his claims and affirm the judgment and order.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Rodney Richardo King

Case No.: 2019AP182-CR

Officials: Brash, P.J., Kessler and Dugan, JJ.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Rodney Richardo King appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree sexual assault and one count of possession of narcotics. King also appeals an order denying his postconviction motion seeking plea withdrawal. He argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel promised him that he would receive a five-year term of initial confinement. We affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. A.M.

Case No.: 2019AP475; 2019AP476

Officials: DONALD, J.

Focus: Termination of Parental Rights

A.M., pro se, appeals the orders terminating her parental rights to her children, M.M. and V.A.-M. A.M. contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the circuit court failed to consider the appropriate factors in rendering its decision. We affirm.

Full Text