Franklin, Edward v. City of Evanston (ND Ill.)
Before CUDAHY, POSNER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.Martin, Alfred v. Evans, John (ND Il.)
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge. Edward Franklin, an employee of the City of Evanston (the City), was arrested for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Learning of Franklin’s arrest in the local paper, the City instituted disciplinary proceedings against him while his criminal case was pending. Franklin unsuccessfully requested that the disciplinary proceedings be continued for a few months until his criminal case was resolved. The City pressed ahead with its disciplinary hearings, questioning Franklin about the criminal charge without warning him, as we have long held to be required by due process considerations, that he would be granted immunity from prosecution based on his answers and that a failure to answer would therefore be viewed negatively. At oral argument, the City admitted that its failure to provide Franklin with the required warnings was pursuant to its policy based on an extremely narrow interpretation of our case law, under which warnings would be required only if the City explicitly required an employee to answer questions on pain of losing his or her employment. However, because the City’s admitted policy effectively does not allow employees in Franklin’s situation an opportunity to tell their side of the story without penalty, we find that the City violated Franklin’s right to procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set out in this opinion, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on this issue is therefore reversed.
Before BAUER, POSNER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.Kramer, Carl R. v. Village North Fond (ED Wis.)
BAUER, Circuit Judge. * * * In January of 1996, a jury found Alfred Martin guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to 50 years in prison. After failing on direct appeal, Martin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court * * *Three issues have been certified for appeal to this court: 1) whether Martin was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel; 2) whether the above-stated claims three through seven were procedurally defaulted; and 3) whether Martin’s claim regarding the denial of a continuance is non-cognizable. * * *
Based on the foregoing analysis, Alfred Martin is not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of his claims. AFFIRMED.
Before BAUER, RIPPLE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.Hasanaj, Ardian v. Ashcroft, John (Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals)
BAUER, Circuit Judge. Carl R. Kramer sued the Village of North Fond du Lac and Chief of Police Larry Wodack, seeking damages for various constitutional violations, all under the umbrella of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in 1996 after a criminal investigation into illegal gambling at taverns in the Village of North Fond du Lac by means of “payouts” (i.e., exchange of cash for accumulation of points) on “Cherry Master” video slot gambling machines. The lower court granted the defendants summary judgment. The district court’s Decision and Order is attached. After careful review, we affirm and adopt the Decision and Order as our own. [Note - Unfortunately it is NOT attached; rather, there are 19 blank pages.]
Before BAUER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.Posted by Marcia Oddi at September 27, 2004 12:57 PM
BAUER, Circuit Judge. This is an immigration case in which the petitioner, Ardian Hasanaj, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a removal order issued in Immigration Court. * * *In order to establish a denial of the right to due process, Hasanaj must show that he was prejudiced by the IJ’s actions. Wigglesworth v. INS, 319 F.3d 951, 960 (7th Cir. 2003). Hasanaj has not pointed to any evidence that might establish prejudice. The IJ’s questioning of Hasanaj was relevant and appropriate. The Petitioner was not barred from testifying about conditions in Albania subsequent to his departure and he did submit voluminous documentary evidence regarding such conditions. He had full opportunity to present his case even without the continuance. He submitted extensive documentary evidence at the hearing, and his testimony was lucid and credible. The record reveals nothing to suggest that he was prejudiced by any of the IJ’s questions, findings, or decisions. His claim of denial of due process is unfounded.
The IJ’s and BIA’s decisions regarding Hasanaj are AFFIRMED and his petition for review is denied.