Sembos, Athanasios v. Philips Components (ND Ill.)
Before RIPPLE, MANION, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.USA v. Johnson, Tery L. (ND Ill.)
MANION, Circuit Judge. Athanasios Sembos sued his former employer, Philips Components, for age discrimination after Philips fired him. Sembos also alleged state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The district court granted Philips summary judgment. Sembos appeals. We affirm.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and BAUER and MANION, Circuit Judges.Lindell, Nathaniel A v. Litscher, Jon E. (WD Wis.)
MANION, Circuit Judge. 43-year-old Tery Johnson, while exploring pornographic corners on the Internet, met who he thought was a 14-year-old girl, Dena. After some sexually explicit “chats” he set up a rendezvous with Dena at a Chicago restaurant. But the person he encountered at the meeting place was a female police officer and the Dena he corresponded with on the Internet turned out to be a detective with the Cook County Sheriff’s Department. Johnson conditionally pleaded guilty to three counts involving his attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and to produce visual depictions of such activity. Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his motions challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2251 for lacking a scienter requirement and for being overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. He also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion challenging language in the indictment stating that he believed “Dena” was a minor. We affirm the district court.
Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.Clark, Marilyn v. Lacy, Alan (ND Ill.)
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge. Nathaniel Lindell, an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), sued prison officials and staff alleging numerous civil rights violations. * * *III> For these reasons, the district court’s dismissal of Lindell’s free-speech claim premised on the defendants’ confiscation of postcards from his cell is VACATED, and that claim is REMANDED for further proceedings. The district court is also directed to redraft its injunction to conform with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) and this opinion. In all other respects the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and DIANE P. WOOD and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 19, 2004 12:23 PM
FLAUM, Chief Judge. In this case we are asked to consider how the Colorado River abstention doctrine applies to a derivative shareholder suit brought in federal court that involves the same factual predicate, most of the same defendants, and fundamentally the same legal issues as a derivative shareholder suit brought by a different plaintiff shareholder in New York state court. Pursuant to Colorado River, the district court stayed this action in favor of the state proceeding. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the stay.