Jerico Matias Cruz v. KAREN V. GRIEBEL and CITY OF CHICAGO

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 26, 2023*
Decided May 30, 2023
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1211
JERICO MATIAS CRUZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KAREN V. GRIEBEL and CITY OF
CHICAGO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 1:20-cv-07415
Gary Feinerman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jerico Cruz challenges the district court’s denial of his fourth postjudgment
motion seeking to attack the dismissal of his underlying civil-rights claims. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-1211 Page 2
After being arrested at a public library in Chicago and charged with criminal
trespass and disorderly conduct, Cruz brought this civil-rights suit against the City of
Chicago and Karen Griebel, the library manager. He alleged that his arrest and the
related search of his belongings were unlawful under the Fourth Amendment and that
the defendants maliciously prosecuted him in violation of state law. The defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6).
Cruz responded but did not address any of their arguments, so the district court
granted the defendants’ motion. The court concluded that Cruz waived any arguments
in response and, regardless, the evidence he appended to his submissions (video
footage of his interaction with police) showed that there was probable cause for his
arrest and the attendant search. The district court then relinquished jurisdiction over the
state malicious-prosecution claim.
Cruz moved to vacate the judgment, arguing, in relevant part, that the court
made a “mistake” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) by not considering
whether he stated a claim for public-accommodation discrimination under 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000a-1. The district court denied the motion, summarily determining that Cruz
provided no grounds to vacate the dismissal of his case. Altogether, Cruz filed four
such motions that the court denied.
After the denial of his fourth postjudgment motion, Cruz filed a notice of appeal.
Because he filed that notice more than 30 days after the denial of his first postjudgment
motion, we limited this appeal to a review of the order denying his fourth
postjudgment motion. See Krivak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2 F.4th 601, 605 (7th Cir.
2021).
On appeal, Cruz maintains that the district court made a mistake by not
considering whether the defendants discriminated against him when they denied him
access to the library, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-1. But the court appropriately
exercised its discretion to deny the motion. Rule 60(b)(1) allows a district court to
correct its own errors. See Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1865 (2022); Mendez v.
Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651, 659 (7th Cir. 2013). It is difficult to characterize the court’s
handling of Cruz’s postjudgment motion as any kind of error, given the absence in his
complaint of any mention of discrimination and his failure to argue any theory of
discrimination in response to the motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --