Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; November 15, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
David M. Schlessinger filed a lawsuit against George Salimes and others, including the Town of Geneva, following an incident at Anthony's Steakhouse in Geneva, Wisconsin, on January 8, 1994. After receiving what he deemed poor service and burnt food, Schlessinger complained loudly and refused to pay until he received a new entree. Following his call to the police, officers, including Salimes, arrived at the scene. Salimes warned Schlessinger that he would be arrested for disorderly conduct and theft of services unless he paid and left, which he ultimately did.
Schlessinger subsequently sued for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming unconstitutional seizure despite having left the restaurant without restraint. The district court dismissed the claims against the restaurant owner, George Condos, and the restaurant itself due to insufficient damages exceeding the jurisdictional minimum. Summary judgment was granted to Salimes based on qualified immunity. Other claims against remaining defendants failed because Schlessinger did not adequately demonstrate their liability. His post-judgment motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to address these deficiencies was denied. Schlessinger is appealing both the dismissal and the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion.
The district court dismissed Schlessinger's lawsuit, deeming it frivolous and potentially retaliatory. The appeal revealed issues regarding whether the complaint met the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy. Plaintiffs are afforded the benefit of the doubt, but they must demonstrate, through applicable law and case facts, that recovery could exceed the required threshold. Schlessinger’s claim lacked merit, as he was not arrested, and the total bill for three diners was only $100, with part of that amount likely not in controversy. His slander claim against Condos, based on a statement regarding possible drug use, raises questions about its defamatory nature and whether punitive damages are permissible under Wisconsin law, which protects reports to police for genuine investigations. Schlessinger failed to cite relevant cases or present a viable legal framework for his claim. On appeal, he attempted to establish the amount in controversy by referencing two newspaper articles, neither of which were applicable to Wisconsin's punitive damage rules. The appeal was ultimately unsuccessful due to a lack of legal argumentation and reliance on irrelevant media sources, emphasizing that substantial jury awards do not negate jurisdictional requirements in diversity cases.
The claim against the Town, the Police Department, and their officials is based on the principle established in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, which states that municipalities are only liable for their own policies, not for the actions of employees. Schlessinger failed to identify any unconstitutional policy adopted by the Town or Police Department and did not articulate a specific theory of liability against the chief of police or town board members. His argument of inadequate police training as deliberate indifference is unfounded, as there is no obligation for municipalities to provide exhaustive training for public employees.
On appeal, Schlessinger incorrectly argues that a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion should be reviewed de novo. This argument lacks merit, as the cited case pertains to criminal cases and does not apply to post-judgment motions. Schlessinger also failed to challenge the district court's decision regarding the defendants, making the standard of review irrelevant.
Regarding the claim against Officer Salimes, it is assumed that police orders requiring compliance for avoiding custody must be justified by probable cause. Schlessinger's assertion that refusing to pay for food does not constitute a crime under state law is misplaced, as misapplication of state law does not violate constitutional rights. Moreover, Schlessinger's conduct was described as loud and disruptive, which supports Salimes's threat of arrest for disorderly conduct. Since there is no material dispute over these facts, summary judgment against Schlessinger is warranted, affirming Salimes's actions as appropriate in maintaining peace.
Salimes did not violate the Constitution, thus eliminating the need to address the immunity question. Schlessinger's attorney proposes revisiting the approach to qualified immunity, suggesting that juries should resolve factual issues related to such claims. However, Schlessinger fails to coherently argue for abandoning precedent established in Rakovich v. Wade, and ignores Supreme Court rulings that mandate courts resolve immunity defenses prior to trial and discovery. The court characterizes Schlessinger's suit as absurd and likely malicious, arguing it trivializes the constitutional rights in question. The dispute, likened to an inappropriate response to a meal complaint, is deemed more suitable for small-claims court rather than federal court. The appeal is considered weaker than the original complaint, with such actions undermining the judicial system and wasting resources. Consequently, Schlessinger and his attorney are directed to explain within 14 days why they should not face penalties for pursuing a frivolous appeal. The court affirms the previous decision and issues an order to show cause.
