Elijah Grant v. David Pfoltner, 74 F.3d 1242 (7th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Elijah Grant v. David Pfoltner, 74 F.3d 1242 (7th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the district court concluded that the evers' first and third claims were challenges to their sentences. if that conclusion were correct, then the district court would lack jurisdiction over these two claims under the rooker-feldman doctrine”
35 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Martin v. Greenwood (ilnd, 2024-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Martin v. Greenwood
N.D. Ill. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the district court concluded that the evers' first and third claims were challenges to their sentences. if that conclusion were correct, then the district court would lack jurisdiction over these two claims under the rooker-feldman doctrine
cited Cited "see" United States v. Fernandez
5th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. United States, 74 F.3d 1242 , 1996 WL 4358, at *4 (7th Cir. 1996) (unpublished table decision); United States v. Montalvo, 20 F. Supp. 2d 270, 279 (D.P.R. 1998).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Fernandez
5th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. United States, 74 F.3d 1242 , 1996 WL 4358, at *4 (7th Cir.1996) (unpublished table decision); United States v. Montalvo, 20 F.Supp.2d 270, 279 (D.P.R.1998).
cited Cited "see" Bustillo v. Hilliard
7th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bustillo v. Henman, 74 F.3d 1242 , 1996 WL 19230 (7th Cir. Jan. 17, 1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ryan v. United States
N.D. Ill. · 2010 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Ewing, No. 95-2009, 74 F.3d 1242 , at *2 n. 4 (7th Cir.1996) (defendant challenged his conviction of honest services fraud on the ground that his conduct pre-dated the statutory amendment generated by McNally ; court held guilty plea of bribery and bid-rigging could be sustained as pecuniary fraud because "the loss suffered by [defendant’s employer] was not 'incidental.' Instead, the money Ewing received as bribes flowed directly, if somewhat circuitously, from the coffers of [his employer] to Ewing."); United States v. Catalfo, 64 F.3d 1070, 1077 (7th Cir.1995) (…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elijah Grant
v.
David Pfoltner
94-1019.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Jan 11, 1996.
74 F.3d 1242
1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 39147
1996 WL 12582
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 77%
Citer courts: N.D. Illinois (1)

74 F.3d 1242

NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit.
Elijah GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
David PFOLTNER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-1019.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 18, 1995.[*]
Decided Jan. 11, 1996.

Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and FAIRCHILD and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Elijah Grant appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a civil rights action alleging the violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[1] 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. He claims that certain disciplinary reprimands he received as a correctional counselor for the State of Illinois' Sheridan Correctional Center were racially motivated and that he was assigned the largest and the worst caseload of any counselor because he was the sole African-American on the counseling staff.

2

Grant did not properly contest the defendants' account of events as stated in their "Statement of Undisputed Facts." Local General Rule 12N(3)(b), Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See, e.g., Midwest Imports, Ltd. v. Coval, No. 95-1184, slip op. at 8-10 (7th Cir. Dec. 12, 1995). Therefore, it is deemed admitted that there was a miscount of the inmates in Grant's class on February 10, 1993 and that when Lieutenant Cook arrived to conduct a recount, Grant engaged in a loud conversation with the inmates in the class, making sarcastic comments and telling Cook to get the count number off the movement sheets in direct contravention of normal prison procedures. Because of these admissions, Grant's references in his motion for summary judgment and appellate brief to statements by the inmates averring that Grant told them to be quiet are irrelevant. Grant's only surviving claim on appeal is that such a violation of institutional policy is normally not disciplined and that he was found guilty solely because he is black.

3

After reviewing the record, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opinion dated December 16, 1993.

4

AFFIRMED.

*

After preliminary examination of the briefs, the court notified the parties that it had tentatively concluded that oral argument would not be helpful to the court in this case. The notice provided that any party might file a "Statement as to Need of Oral Argument." See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Cir.R. 34(f). Plaintiff-Appellant filed a statement requesting oral argument. Upon consideration of that statement, the briefs, and the record, we deny the request. Accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record

1

Defendants Robert Acosta and Thomas Roth did not join in the motion for summary judgment, allegedly claiming that they were not properly served in this action. The docket sheet indicates that service was executed upon them on August 12, 1993. Because the district court found no constitutional violation in this case, it entered judgment in favor of Acosta and Roth. Grant does not contest the inclusion of Acosta and Roth in the judgment