Smith, Randy v. Northeastern IL Univ (ND Ill.)
Before BAUER, WOOD, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.Davis, Cedell v. Holmes, Michael L. (ND Ill.)
WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Randy Smith, Victoria
Guerrero, Ann Weaver and Elbert Lee Reeves filed suit
against defendants Northeastern Illinois University (“Northeastern”),
Gerald Leenheer, and Kevin Connolly. Smith,
Reeves and Weaver, all African American, alleged that the
defendants (Connolly and Leenheer are white) discriminated
against them on account of their race by creating and
tolerating a hostile work environment in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In addition, they, along with
Guerrero, who is Latina, allege suffering racially motivated
retaliation in violation of § 1981 and Title VII. All four
plaintiffs also claim that the defendants violated their
rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First Amendment by
depriving them of their ability to complain about their
unfair treatment at defendants’ hands and by subjecting
them to a hostile work environment or harassment when
they exercised their First Amendment rights. * * *Weaver and Guerrero appeal the district court’s grant of
summary judgment on their hostile work environment and
retaliation claims under Title VII. Smith and Reeves seek
this court’s review of the district court’s denial of their motion
for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
On appeal, plaintiffs do not pursue any claims against
Connolly, so we treat him as no longer a party to this case.
For the reasons given below, we affirm. * * *
Before RIPPLE, WOOD, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.Halprin, Robyn v. Prairie Single Fam (ND Ill.)
WOOD, Circuit Judge. A dispute between two intoxicated
friends turned lethal when Cedell Davis stabbed Donovan
(also known as David) Coleman as they watched football
together one afternoon. Before, during, and after his trial,
Davis implored his counsel to investigate a number of
potential witnesses who would have supported his claim of
self-defense, including the only sober eye-witness to the altercation.
Notwithstanding these pleas, his attorneys never
contacted any of the witnesses that Davis identified and
called no defense witnesses at trial. After making his way
through the Illinois courts, Davis filed a pro se petition for
habeas corpus stating a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel based on his attorneys’ failure to investigate these
witnesses.The district court rejected his claim as procedurally defaulted
and further found that the Illinois courts had not
unreasonably applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668 (1984),when they concluded that his attorneys’ failure
to contact these witnesses was reasonable and that he suffered
no prejudice as a result. Because we cannot provide a
meaningful review of Davis’s habeas petition and the
Illinois courts’ adjudication of his Strickland claim without
more information regarding the content of these potential
witnesses’ testimony, we vacate the district court’s denial of
Davis’s habeas petition and remand for an evidentiary
hearing on this issue. * * *
Before POSNER, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.USA v. Villegas, Joel (ND Ill.)
POSNER, Circuit Judge. The district court dismissed this
suit under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq., for
failure to state a claim, specifically under sections 3604 and
3617; there are also state law claims, but as is usual the
district judge relinquished jurisdiction over them when he
dismissed the federal claims before trial. The plaintiffs are
a couple who own a home in a suburban subdivision. The
principal defendant is the homeowners’ association that
manages the subdivision and provides various services to
the homeowners. The other defendants, with the exception
of a corporation (and its president) that also provides
services and is alleged to have acted in cahoots with the
association in harassing the plaintiffs, are members of the
association; that is, they are the plaintiffs’ neighbors.
The complaint—our only source of facts, because the suit
was dismissed for failure to state a claim—alleges the following:One of the plaintiffs is Jewish. The president of the association
wrote “H-town property” on a wall of the plaintiffs’
property, “H-town” being short for “Hymie Town,” and he
further vandalized the property by damaging trees and plants
and cutting down strings of holiday lights. * * *
Before COFFEY, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. In November 2001, a grand jury
returned a two-count indictment against Joel Villegas; the
indictment charged Mr. Villegas with one count of possessing
with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a) and with one count of carrying a firearm in
relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). Mr. Villegas moved to suppress the evidence on
which the indictment was based. After the district court
denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, Mr.
Villegas entered an unconditional plea of guilty on both
counts and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment.
Mr. Villegas now challenges aspects of his guilty plea and
his sentence. We affirm. * * *