Mulvania v. Sheriff of Rock Island County
850 F.3d 849
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 7, 2010 Joan Mulvania was arrested, taken to Rock Island County Jail, behaved erratically (allegedly a PTSD flashback), resisted changing into a jail uniform, and officers removed her clothes while restraining her; she later had a seizure and was released without charges.
- Mulvania sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising claims including unlawful strip search/excessive force and later sought to add an ADA claim challenging intake procedures; she amended complaints multiple times and the district court denied leave to add the ADA claim as untimely.
- Separately, ten other women challenged the Sheriff’s policy requiring female detainees to wear white underwear or no underwear (with the option to purchase commissary underwear or have family bring white underwear); they described humiliation, exposure at court, and menstrual harms.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Sheriff on Mulvania’s excessive-force strip-search claim and on the underwear-policy claim; it also denied class certification for the underwear claim and denied leave to add the ADA claim.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on Mulvania’s excessive-force claim and the denial of amendment to add an ADA claim, but reversed summary judgment on the white-underwear policy (finding a triable issue whether it was rationally related to a legitimate objective or excessive) and affirmed denial of class certification on numerosity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive-force custom or practice in enforcing uniform policy | Mulvania: jail routinely uses excessive force to make detainees change into jumpsuits | Sheriff: policy has a use-of-force continuum; isolated incident only; insufficient evidence of a widespread custom | Affirmed for Sheriff — plaintiffs failed to show a widespread practice of excessive force |
| ADA claim to require mental-health screening before enforcing uniform policy | Mulvania: PTSD flashback and policy failed to accommodate disability | Sheriff: amendment untimely, does not relate back, and would prejudice defendants | Affirmed denial of leave to amend as not an abuse of discretion (undue delay, futility/statute of limitations) |
| White-underwear policy substantive Fourteenth Amendment challenge | Plaintiffs: policy not rationally related to legitimate security purpose and imposes dignitary harm (humiliation, exposure, menstrual harms) | Sheriff: policy protects against tattoo-ink security risk; similar policies exist; deference to jail admins | Reversed summary judgment for Sheriff — triable issues exist whether policy is irrational or excessive relative to interest |
| Class certification for underwear claim (Rule 23) | Plaintiffs: common policies and harms support class under Rule 23(b)(3) | Sheriff: numerosity and predominance not satisfied; individualized damages predominate | Affirmed denial of class certification — district court misapplied predominance but did not abuse discretion on numerosity (plaintiffs’ numerosity showing inadequate) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaib v. Geo Group, Inc., 819 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1979) (pretrial detainee conditions test under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2015) (objective evidence standard for pretrial-detainee excessive-force/conditions claims)
- Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) (class certification: individualized damages do not defeat predominance)
- Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2008) (Rule 15/23 procedural discussion regarding amendments and numerosity)
- Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (U.S. 2011) (recognition of prisoners’ human dignity in constitutional balancing)