Marquise Wright v. Calumet City, Illinois
848 F.3d 814
7th Cir.2017Background
- Dec. 22, 2014: Calumet City police arrested Marquise Wright without a warrant in a multi‑victim shooting; Wright admitted having a gun and faced at least felony weapons charges. Lab testing was pending before formal charging.
- While detained (about 55 hours), Wright sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the City violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide a judicial probable‑cause determination within 48 hours.
- Wright sought certification of two classes: (1) future arrestees detained beyond 48 hours without a judicial probable‑cause determination; (2) a retrospective class of persons detained after Dec. 24, 2012 who lacked a 48‑hour probable‑cause hearing (≈31 people). The district court denied certification for lack of numerosity.
- The City made a Rule 68 offer of judgment; Wright accepted an unqualified judgment for $5,000 "for all claims brought under this lawsuit," with attorneys’ fees allocated only for his individual claim and excluding class action fees.
- Wright appealed only the denial of certification of the prospective (future detainees) class. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of Article III jurisdiction, concluding Wright no longer had a personal stake after accepting the all‑claims Rule 68 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright retained Article III standing to appeal the denial of class certification after accepting a Rule 68 judgment that resolved "all claims" | Wright argued he retained a concrete interest (e.g., attorneys’ fees or ability to represent the class) sufficient to litigate certification on appeal | City argued acceptance of the unqualified Rule 68 judgment extinguished Wright’s individual and class interests, leaving no case or controversy | Held: No standing — acceptance of the Rule 68 judgment resolving "all claims" extinguished Wright’s personal stake; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether attorneys’ fees entitlement alone can preserve Article III standing to appeal class certification | Wright relied on Roper‑type arguments that ongoing interest in shifting fees could preserve an appeal | City argued fee interest is insufficient under Supreme Court precedent (Lewis) and Seventh Circuit authority | Held: Interest in attorneys’ fees alone is insufficient to create Article III standing where underlying claims are fully resolved; Roper inapplicable on these facts |
| Whether a reservation or desire to appeal preserves concrete adversity | Wright argued appellate review should be allowed despite settlement | City argued no reservation was made and Wright accepted full relief; mere desire to appeal is inadequate | Held: Mere reservation or desire to appeal (and here no reservation existed) does not establish the requisite personal stake; appellant must retain concrete, personal interests |
| Whether someone else could intervene to keep the certification issue alive | Wright suggested prospective class members or other mechanisms could keep the case live | City noted no existing named plaintiff with a live claim and the certified class sought only future detainees | Held: No viable intervenor or live named plaintiff exists; certification issue cannot be litigated absent a party with Article III standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (Article III requires a continuing personal stake at all stages)
- Campbell‑Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (complete redress of plaintiff’s claim can render case moot)
- Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980) (plaintiffs who lacked full relief but retained interest in shifting fees could appeal denial of certification)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (attorneys’ fees interest is insufficient to create Article III case or controversy when underlying claim is moot)
- Muro v. Target Corp., 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009) (reservation of right to appeal insufficient alone; plaintiff must retain concrete stake)
- Espenscheid v. Directsat USA, LLC, 688 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2012) (contingent incentive award can preserve standing)
- Premium Plus Partners v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 648 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (settlement acceptance extinguishes similar live claims)
- Rhodes v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 636 F.3d 88 (4th Cir. 2011) (settlement of individual claims extinguishes representative’s personal interest for appeal)