Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 3, 2005 Decided May 4, 2005 Before Hon. FRANK… v. David Griffiths

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 3, 2005
Decided May 4, 2005
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
JOHN BIELENBERG and DIXIE BIELENBERG,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
No. 04-4134 v.
DAVID GRIFFITHS,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United
States District Court
for the Central
District of Illinois.
No. 00 C 1281
Michael M. Mihm,
Judge.
Order
Our prior order in this case describes the factual
background and the nature of the plaintiffs' claims.
Bielenberg
v. Griffiths, No. 02-3573 (7th Cir. Mar. 14, 2003) (unpublished
order).
We observed that the plaintiffs had not sued the physicians
and hospital involved in their confinement for psychiatric
evaluation. On remand, they added many additional parties. But
the underlying events occurred in September 1998, and the
medical defendants were not sued until July 2003. The statute of
limitations is two years, see
Ashafa v. Chicago, 146 F.3d 459
(7th Cir. 1998), so the claims against these additional
defendants are untimely.
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-4134 Page 2
With respect to the original defendants, our prior order
noted that the officers who conducted the search and housing-
code inspection acted under the authority of a warrant and so
almost certainly possess qualified immunity. See, e.g.,
Malley
v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986). Indeed, we observed, the claim
for damages appears to be frivolous. Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated that the warrant was transparently defective so
that immunity could be overcome. To the contrary, they have
ignored the observations in our order. Their appellate brief
does not discuss our analysis (or the district court's) and does
not cite a single judicial decision. Although plaintiffs
doubtless feel aggrieved by the events, they do not demonstrate
any legal entitlement to relief.
The City of Decatur does not possess immunity but is
responsible only for its own policies--which means, concretely,
its housing code, under which the entries and seizures were
made. See
Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Services, 436
U.S. 658 (1978). The district court concluded that the City's
code complies with the Constitution by limiting searches to
those supported by probable cause and by giving owners notice
and an opportunity for a hearing before final adverse action is
taken. Again plaintiffs offer no legal support for their
contrary position. We see no reason to disturb the district
judge's conclusion.
Affirmed

-- 2 of 2 --