Housing Authority Ri v. Chicago Housing (ND Ill.)
Before BAUER, RIPPLE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.Ward, Jerry v. Hinsley, Charles (ND Ill.)
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Defending oneself from a largescale class action lawsuit is a costly task. And so it comes as no surprise that these two parties are before us to determine who should foot the bill for the defense of a 1999 lawsuit filed by approximately 10,000 current or former Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) residents who claimed they have been exposed to and harmed by environmental contaminants while living on CHA’s public housing property. * * *Because the district court issued a thorough and wellreasoned memorandum opinion and order, we adopt the reasoning of the district court’s September 30, 2003 Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing those claims challenged on appeal and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. A copy of the district court’s order is attached.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and KANNE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.USA v. Jackson, Keenan L. (CD Ill.)
FLAUM, Chief Judge. Petitioner-appellant Jerry Ward appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His appeal presents the question of whether a federal habeas court may review procedurally defaulted claims of alleged structural errors when the petitioner has not argued that the procedural default is excused by cause and prejudice or that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if the claims are not addressed. We hold that a federal habeas court may not review such claims, and therefore we affirm the district court’s denial of Ward’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.Posted by Marcia Oddi at July 28, 2004 12:25 PM
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Police in Springfield, Illinois, stopped Keenan Jackson for a traffic offense. He was not carrying a driver’s license. After a check of identifying details via the computer terminal in the squad car implied that the driver might not be who he claimed, Officer Sapetti decided to detain Jackson until his identity could be established. Sapetti handcuffed Jackson and, before seating him in the police car, patted him down for weapons; he found a hard item in Jackson’s crotch. The object turned out to be more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, and Jackson was indicted for a violation of 21 U.S.C. §841. After the district court denied his motion to suppress this evidence, Jackson entered a conditional guilty plea that preserved his right to appeal the question whether Officer Sapetti violated the fourth amendment. * * * Affirmed.RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The key question in this case is the type of detention to which Mr. Jackson was subject while waiting for Officer Sapetti to investigate his identity. As noted by the majority, the subjective intent of both parties—Officer Sapetti and Mr. Jackson—are irrelevant to the inquiry: The justification for the stop, as well as the nature of the resulting detention, both are governed by an objective standard. * * *
The question, therefore, is whether it was “immediately apparent” to Officer Sapetti that the object located on Mr. Jackson was contraband. Stated another way, was Officer Sapetti “acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained probable cause to believe that the lump in [Mr. Jackson’s pants] was contraband.” Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 377.
The district court did not reach this question. * * * Because this issue is one that is best addressed by the district court in the first instance, I would remand the case to the district court to determine whether Officer Sapetti’s actions were consistent with Terry and its progeny. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.