John Smentek v. Thomas Dart
683 F.3d 373
7th Cir.2012Background
- Smentek sues Cook County and its sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the jail’s failure to provide timely dental treatment to about 10,000 inmates violated the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.
- Most inmates are pretrial detainees, so the Eighth Amendment does not apply to them, but due process protections can nonetheless apply; some class members are convicts, triggering Eighth Amendment concerns as well.
- Vincent Smith and Lance Wrightsell had nearly identical suits; Smith was denied class certification in 2008 and Wrightsell was denied later; Smentek’s case followed in January 2009 in a different district judge’s courtroom.
- After Smith v. Bayer Corp., the district court reversed earlier denials in Smentek and certified the class; Smith v. Bayer discussed limits on binding nonparties through class action certification and comity.
- The appeal questions whether comity between district judges on class certification is preclusive or merely a nonbinding standard of respect for related rulings, and whether the district court’s certification should stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is comity between district judges preclusive on class certification? | Smentek argues comity should bar certification in copycat suits. | Defendants contend comity precludes certifying a similar class in a copycat action. | No; comity is not preclusive. |
| Does Smith v. Bayer Corp. govern the outcome on comity in copycat actions here? | Smith supports limiting binding effect on nonparties across similar actions. | Smith creates a broader comity framework that could preclude similar class actions. | Smith’s comity ruling does not automatically preclude certification here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (U.S. 2011) (nonparties cannot be bound by rejected class actions; comity governs but not preclusion)
- Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., 529 U.S. 193 (U.S. 2000) (comity considerations in parallel proceedings)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (comity and stay considerations in parallel litigation)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971) (federal court abstention principles informing comity)
- Phillips Medical Systems Int’l B.V. v. Bruetman, 8 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 1993) (comity and related doctrines in multi-forum litigation)