U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2009

The court affirmed dismissal of Brooks’s claims, holding that his § 1983 conspiracy and state-law civil conspiracy and intentional-infliction claims were untimely, his state-law malicious-prosecution claim was barred by sovereign immunity, and his remaining § 1983 due-process claim was inadequately pleaded.

The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the ambulance company, its operations director, both hospitals as entities, and the St. Agnes nurses because the complaint alleged no basis for corporate or supervisory liability or state action by St. Agnes.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the survivors’ substantive due process claim against Milwaukee County. Although the complaint alleged that the County released Gray without his prescribed medication, it did not allege facts making Moore a foreseeable victim of a specific, limited danger created by the County…

The court affirmed dismissal of the officers’ § 1983 claims because their complaint challenged the union’s internal decision to expel them and did not adequately allege that the City was responsible for that decision.

The court held that a prisoner need not allege speech on a matter of public concern to state a First Amendment retaliation claim and that Bridges adequately alleged retaliation for providing an affidavit in another inmate’s wrongful-death lawsuit.

The court vacated the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits and remanded to the agency because the ALJ inadequately explained the credibility finding and RFC, misidentified a transferable skill and overstated the number of available jobs.

The court held that Burks plausibly stated a deliberate-indifference claim against Shakoor because the complaint alleged that prison medical personnel were alerted to a serious eye condition, failed to act, and allowed permanent injury, while discovery could clarify Shakoor’s knowledge and role.