794 F.3d 713
7th Cir.2015Background
- Apollo Properties owned commercial property in Franklin, WI and leased it to DKCLM; DKCLM officer Dale Kreil lived on and stored personal and business items on the premises.
- After an alleged rent default, parties stipulated that Apollo could seek a writ of restitution on future default without notice; Apollo obtained a writ in August 2005, stayed until September 26, 2005.
- Sheriff execution began October 5 and completed October 20, 2005; records left uncertain when the sheriff actually received the writ and thus when the 10-business-day statutory execution window began.
- Kreil was evicted; a judgment for unpaid rent (~$54,000) was later entered against him; six years later he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations related to the eviction and removal/destruction of his property.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; on appeal, Kreil pressed (1) unreasonable seizure/Fourth Amendment claim based on alleged statutory deadline violation, and (2) due process/Fourteenth Amendment claim for loss/destruction of personal property.
- The court found insufficient evidence that the eviction or the length of property removal was unreasonable or that defendants disposed of property; it also discussed but did not finally decide that state remedies capped at $50,000 might be inadequate under Parrott.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether execution of writ after Wisconsin's 10-business-day deadline constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment | Kreil: Sheriff missed statutory deadline, so seizure was unreasonable and constitutional violation | County: Statutory deadline is state law; Fourth Amendment requires a federal reasonableness inquiry, not strict adherence to state deadline; eviction was reasonable | Held: No Fourth Amendment violation; federal reasonableness standard governs and Kreil did not show unreasonableness |
| Whether removal/disposal of Kreil's personal property violated substantive or procedural due process | Kreil: County/agents removed, destroyed, or caused disposal of property without due process | County: Denied improper disposal; moving companies handled property; Kreil failed to provide specific evidence or pursue discovery against movers | Held: Due process claim fails for lack of admissible, specific evidence to oppose summary judgment; alternative state-remedy adequacy defense discussed but not necessary to the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (Fourth Amendment standard is federal reasonableness, not state-law arrest rules)
- Sroga v. Weiglen, 649 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2011) (applying federal reasonableness standard to Fourth Amendment challenges)
- Jackson v. Parker, 627 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2010) (same)
- Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864 (7th Cir. 1983) (district court previously held post-deadline writ execution violated Fourth Amendment)
- Ani-Deng v. Jeffboat, LLC, 777 F.3d 452 (7th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment requires admissible, specific evidence supporting claims)
- Parrott v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (adequate state remedies can preclude § 1983 due process claims)
- Julian v. Hanna, 732 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2013) (discussing adequacy of state remedies when statutory caps may be insufficient)