Santana v. Cook County Board of Review, 679 F.3d 614

Board of Review has power to revise or modify assessments under 35 ILCS 200/16-95.
Santana, a former Board employee, alleges red flagging and a pay-for-play scheme to extort donations.
District court dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed; discovery and scope of the ban were central.
District court concluded Santana was banned from the Board premises (public and private areas) based on transcripts and a Fox News segment.
Santana amended multiple times; the fourth amended complaint dropped the ban issue and focused on red flagging and pay-for-play.
Court reviews de novo the dismissal of claims, with some waiver issues regarding First Amendment and equal protection content.]
Santana contends federal §1983 and civil RICO violations based on the alleged ban, defamation, and racketeering activities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Santana states a viable §1983 procedural due process claim.	Santana claims a protected liberty interest via ban from Board premises.	No protected entitlement; ban scope limited to Board internals.	No protected liberty interest; due process claim fails.
Whether Santana states a stigma-plus procedural due process claim.	Defamation harms reputation and future employment as a stigma-plus injury.	Defamation alone does not create a due process liberty interest.	Defamation with stigma-plus not alleged to alter a recognized right; claim dismissed.
Whether Santana states a First Amendment retaliation claim.	Association with Froehlich and resistance to donations led to retaliation via red flagging and Fox News statements.	Unclear causal link; ban no longer pleaded; fear of retaliation not shown to deter ordinary activity.	No actionable retaliation; claim dismissed.
Whether Santana states a RICO claim.	Racketeering includes bribery, extortion, and related schemes injuring business.	Alleged actions do not injure Santana’s business or property; records treated as defamation, not RICO injury.	RICO claim inadequately pleaded; no injury to business or property established.

Khan v. Bland, 630 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2010) (protects stigma-plus standards in due process analysis)
Brown v. Michigan City Ind., 462 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2006) (stigma-plus requires a recognized right or status)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claims)
Gen. Elec. Capital v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 1997) (consideration of outside materials in Rule 12(d) contexts)
Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2009) (materials referenced in complaint may be considered for Rule 12(b)(6))
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009) (test for First Amendment retaliation requires a motivating factor)
Surita v. Hyde, 665 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2011) (adverse action must deter future First Amendment activity)
Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2009) (retaliation claims require deterrent effect)
Evans v. City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2006) (reputational injury is personal; not a corporate injury under §1964(c))