Darreyll Thomas v. Michael Reese
696 F. App'x 750
7th Cir.2017Background
- Thomas, a detainee at Dane County Jail, alleges correctional officers assaulted him during intake, causing serious injuries.
- He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; the district court initially dismissed for failure to exhaust but this court remanded, finding administrative remedies unavailable (Thomas I).
- On remand the district court reviewed a video of the incident, ordered defendants to give it to Thomas, and appointed counsel; the case proceeded to mediation.
- The parties executed a written settlement agreement providing for dismissal of the suit in exchange for $25,000; the agreement required execution of closing documents.
- Defendants mailed a $25,000 check and a draft stipulation to dismiss; Thomas refused to sign and his counsel later sought to withdraw because Thomas no longer wanted them.
- Defendants moved to enforce the settlement; the district court did so. Thomas appealed, arguing his attorneys lied about the video’s probative value, inducing his settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of settlement | Thomas contends he was induced to settle by attorney misstatements about the video and thus the settlement should be undone | Defendants argue the written settlement is valid and enforceable; Thomas has not returned the settlement proceeds | Settlement enforceable; Thomas must tender consideration to rescind and did not do so, so he cannot avoid the agreement |
| Fraud/inducement by attorneys re: video | Thomas says attorneys lied that video showed no identifiable witnesses, which induced him to settle | Defendants and court note Thomas knew the district judge and mediator indicated witnesses were visible, so any attorney statements did not induce settlement | No relief for inducement: Thomas settled despite knowledge contradicting his attorneys’ statements |
| Requirement to tender consideration before rescission | Thomas did not return the $25,000 received by his former counsel | Defendants assert rescission not available without return of consideration | Court holds a party must return consideration before seeking to rescind; Thomas did not tender funds |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | N/A (procedural) | Defendants note the appeal is frivolous under PLRA | Appeal deemed frivolous; Thomas assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Reese, 787 F.3d 845 (7th Cir. 2015) (background remand decision on exhaustion)
- United States v. Rogers Cartage Co., 794 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2015) (settlement agreement treated as contract)
- Hampton v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2009) (rescission requires return of consideration)
- Fleming v. U.S. Postal Service AMF O’Hare, 27 F.3d 259 (7th Cir. 1994) (party must return benefits before seeking rescission)
- Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2000) (cannot retain benefits while repudiating contract)