The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Gloria Padilla ("Padilla") and Anita Jones ("Jones") have
separately sued Dr. Luis M. d'Avis and the City of Chicago
("City") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") for damages
arising from Dr. d'Avis' alleged sexual assaults during the
course of his gynecological examinations of Padilla and Jones
at a City Department of Health facility. Each plaintiff's
Complaint also asserts pendent state law tort claims against
both Dr. d'Avis and City.
Jones is before this Court on a motion to reconsider Judge
Perry's previous dismissal of her case.*fn1 In Padilla's
case, both Dr. d'Avis and City have moved to dismiss the
Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim for relief. For the reasons stated in this
memorandum opinion and order:
2. As for Padilla's case:
(a) Dr. d'Avis' motion to dismiss Padilla's
claims against him is granted.
(b) City's motion to dismiss is denied as to
the Section 1983 claim and granted as to the
state law claim.
On June 11, 1981 Jones went to a City Department of Health
facility located in Chicago for a gynecological examination.
During the course of that examination Dr. d'Avis, an employee
of the facility, sexually assaulted Jones, depriving her of
constitutionally protected liberty and property interests.
Padilla lodges the same charge against Dr. d'Avis arising out
of a March 1, 1982 gynecological examination.
City has failed (1) adequately to train, instruct, supervise
and discipline physicians, (2) to require another female's
presence during the exam to prevent such assaults and (3)
adequately to investigate patient complaints of misconduct
(Jones Amended Complaint ¶¶ 11, 12; Padilla Complaint ¶¶ 11,
13). Such failures caused Dr. d'Avis to assault Jones and
In addition to their Section 1983 claims both plaintiffs
assert (at least) the following state law torts:
1. against Dr. d'Avis: assault, infliction of
emotional distress and negligence; and
2. against City: by its earlier-described
"willful and wanton" failures, violation of its
duty to hire competent physicians and discipline
them for misconduct.
Finally, both plaintiffs lodged complaints against Dr. d'Avis
with agents of City. Though City conducted an investigation,
it was neither fair nor thorough (though just how that
delinquency damaged plaintiffs is unidentified).
Each plaintiff seeks $1 million in compensatory damages and
$5 million in punitive damages. Those prayers were attached to
the Section 1983 claims and state law claims alike.*fn4
Absent some formally promulgated standard of conduct (such
as an ordinance or administrative regulation), a Section 1983
cause of action against a municipality must be grounded on
some direct municipal act or omission or some municipal
policy, custom or practice that in either event proximately
caused the employee tort-feasor to inflict the harm on the
plaintiff. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City
of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d
611 (1978); Means v. City of Chicago, 535 F. Supp. 455, 458
(N.D.Ill. 1982). Here Padilla and Jones ...