District Court, S.D. Illinois — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Kuna v. Illinois State Board of Elections
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2011-09-26
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued the Illinois State Board of Elections, the State of Illinois, a school district, and several private businesses after his unsuccessful bid to qualify as a Republican candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate primary. He alleged that the state's minimum signature requirement under the Election Code violated various constitutional provisions, including Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the other defendants violated his First Amendment rights by barring him from circulating nomination petitions on their property. The court granted all defendants' motions to dismiss, ruling that sovereign immunity barred claims against the state entities, that the election-related claims were moot after the primary date, and that the remaining allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
electionsfree speechcivil rights
Corrington v. United States
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2011-03-02
In this case, plaintiff Kyle Corrington, an employee of Shred-it, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after being stuck by used syringe needles on two occasions while shredding items at the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans Hospital in Columbia, Missouri. He claimed the hospital negligently disposed of the needles, leading to physical injury and emotional distress from fear of contracting diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, including the need for testing and mental anguish. The court applied Missouri law, which governs FTCA claims arising in that state, and held that recovery for emotional distress requires proof of actual exposure to the virus through a scientifically accepted method of transmission. Because the plaintiff offered no evidence of such actual exposure, the court found his fear unreasonable as a matter of law and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, entering judgment in favor of the United States on all claims.
torts & liabilityfederal power
Altman v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVS.
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2009-09-28
This case involves a former DCFS employee who alleged race discrimination, hostile work environment, disability discrimination under the ADA, FMLA interference, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress by her supervisors and the agency, stemming from her assignment to cases, disciplinary actions, denial of accommodations for an auditory processing impairment, and her eventual termination for falsifying records in a child abuse investigation. The court addressed multiple cross-motions for summary judgment and to strike evidence. It granted DCFS's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim in Count V, entering judgment for the defendant, because collateral estoppel from a prior Civil Service Commission administrative decision barred relitigation of the falsification charges that justified her firing. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on that count, denied the motions to strike, and allowed the remaining claims in Counts I-IV to proceed against DCFS.
civil rightslabor & employment
Michael v. CITY OF GRANITE CITY, ILL.
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2009-03-27
This case concerned pro-life protesters who sued the City of Granite City, its mayor, police chief, and officers after a 2005 Christmas parade incident, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when police allegedly failed to protect them from hecklers and threatened assault charges while they displayed signs with graphic images of aborted fetuses. The court had previously ruled that City Ordinance 7878, which restricted the size and placement of signs near parades, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored and created a heckler's veto. After a bench trial on the remaining claims of inadequate protection and threats to prosecute, the court found in favor of the individual defendants, determining that the officers' actions were reasonable and did not violate the plaintiffs' rights, but awarded the plaintiffs $300 in minimal damages against the City solely for the effects of the invalid ordinance.
free speechcivil rightsreligious liberty
Kelly v. United States
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2008-03-13
The case involved a court reporter suing the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence after an inmate at USP Marion exposed himself to her during a deposition, claiming staff failed to properly supervise the inmate despite knowing his dangerous tendencies. The government moved to dismiss, asserting that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA preserved sovereign immunity because prison staff exercised judgment in supervising inmate visits without specific local procedures dictating their actions. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the officers' decisions on how to conduct supervision were discretionary and grounded in policy considerations, even if negligently performed.
criminal lawfederal powertorts & liability
Gibson v. Retirement Plan for Hourly Employees of Personal Products Co.
District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2007-09-26
This ERISA case involved a former employee who received disability retirement benefits under an employer-sponsored plan from 1990 until 2006, when benefits were terminated after medical evaluations concluded she was only partially disabled rather than totally and permanently disabled as required by the plan. The plaintiff challenged the termination, arguing that continued benefit payments after an initial independent medical exam created an estoppel preventing the plan from denying ongoing eligibility. The court reviewed the plan administrator's decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard due to the plan's grant of discretionary authority and granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the administrative record while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. It held that the jointly selected third doctor's binding opinion on partial disability controlled under the plan's terms and that prior payments alone could not override the written plan requirements or support an estoppel claim.
labor & employment