John Vergara v. City of Chicago
939 F.3d 882
| 7th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Sept. 2011 Chicago officers Dal Ponte, Srisuch, and Nigro stopped, searched, and detained Vergara, Ruiz, and Garcia at Homan Square, interrogating them for many hours without Miranda warnings, denying food/water/bathroom access, and pressuring them for false confessions. The officers threatened to file false charges and told the plaintiffs to remain silent; the plaintiffs allege they agreed to stay quiet and feared retaliation.
- After two weeks the threats ceased, but plaintiffs did not sue until March 2015, after a Guardian exposé on Homan Square prompted them to contact counsel — about 3.5 years after the events.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The district court entered a minute order dismissing the case on March 31, 2016 and promised a written opinion; the opinion and a Rule 58 judgment issued on Jan. 31, 2018.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Feb. 6, 2018. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A) the March 31, 2016 minute order was deemed "entered" for appeal purposes 150 days later (Aug. 29, 2016), so the 30‑day appeal window had long expired.
- Defendants flagged the untimeliness in their docketing statement on Aug. 17, 2018, but missed the Seventh Circuit Rule 3(c)(1) deadline to correct the appellant’s docketing statement within 14 days, creating a forfeiture question.
- The Seventh Circuit declined to dismiss the appeal on forfeiture grounds (defendants had forfeited timely invocation of Rule 4), but on the merits affirmed the dismissal: the § 1983 suit was time‑barred and equitable estoppel based on officer intimidation/retaliation does not toll the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed as untimely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) | Defendants forfeited any Rule 4 objection by missing Circuit Rule 3(c)(1) 14‑day correction deadline, so appeal should proceed | Appeal is untimely because the March 31, 2016 minute order was "entered" Aug. 29, 2016 under Rule 4(a)(7)(A), and the 30‑day appeal window expired | Defendants forfeited timely invocation of Rule 4 via Rule 3(c)(1) delay; court declined to dismiss appeal on that procedural basis |
| Whether plaintiffs may equitably estop the statute of limitations because officers intimidated them into silence | Intimidation and threats by officers prevented timely filing; equitable estoppel should toll the limitations period | Statute of limitations ran; under Seventh Circuit precedent threats/retaliation do not support equitable estoppel and cannot indefinitely toll limitations | Court held the complaint untimely; equitable estoppel based on threats/retaliation is unavailable; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Weatherspoon, 900 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rule 4 is a mandatory claim‑processing rule but can be forfeited)
- Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, 897 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2018) (procedural‑rule forfeiture and docketing‑statement responsibilities)
- In re Wade, 926 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 2019) (treating certain local‑rule time limits as claim‑processing rules subject to forfeiture)
- Lucas v. Chicago Transit Authority, 367 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2004) (equitable estoppel elements in § 1983 contexts)
- Beckel v. Wal‑Mart Associates, Inc., 301 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2002) (threats of retaliation are not a basis for equitable estoppel)
- Shanoff v. Illinois Dep’t of Human Services, 258 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2001) (statutes of limitations must be seriously applied; limits on equitable estoppel)
- Shropshear v. Corp. Counsel of Chicago, 275 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (equitable estoppel ends when the circumstance giving rise to estoppel is removed)