« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP) | Main | Courts - "Va. Rushes To Address Ruling on Analysts: Drug-Case Demands Have Strained State Lab" »

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Ind. Decisions - One Indiana case decided by 7th Circuit today; plus an Illinois case of interest

In U.S. v. Foster (SD Ind., Judge Young), a 6-page opinion, Judge Cudahy writes:

Darryl Foster pleaded guilty to violating the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., which prohibits convicted felons from possessing a firearm. The district court enhanced Foster’s sentence pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because it found that he had three prior violent felony convictions and that he used his gun in connection with the commission of a violent crime, to wit: criminal recklessness. Foster has affirmatively waived any challenge to the ACCA enhancement, and the argument that he does make on appeal is frivolous. We therefore affirm.
In Hanes v. Zurick, et al (ND Ill.), a 13-page opinion, Judge Wood writes:
Stephen Hanes sued the Village of Grayslake, Illinois, and eleven officers of its police department, alleging that the officers denied him—and only him—equal protection of the law, solely for reasons of personal animus. Relying on Hilton v. City of Wheeling, 209 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2000), the district court denied the officers’ motion to dismiss, which sought dismissal both on the basis of qualified immunity and for failure to state a claim. Under Hilton, a plaintiff states such a claim by alleging that “the police decided to withdraw all protection . . . out of sheer malice.” Id. at 1007. Focusing on their qualified immunity theory, the officers filed this interlocutory appeal, in which they invite us to reconsider Hilton in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 128 S. Ct. 2146 (2008), that no class-of-one equal protection claim can be made in the public-employment context. We reject the officers’ invitation. Based on the significant differences between public employment and policing, we hold that Hilton remains good law after Engquist. We therefore affirm.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 18, 2009 01:25 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions