Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CLARK v. CITY OF CHICAGO

September 5, 1984

WALLACE CLARK AND LUCILLE CLARK, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.

  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Wallace Clark ("Clark") and his wife Lucille ("Mrs. Clark") sue the City of Chicago ("City"), Donald T. Podgorny ("Podgorny"), Stephan J. Wilke ("Wilke"), Richard J. Brzeczek ("Brzeczek") and Francis A. Nolan ("Nolan"), claiming injury from the issuance of a parking citation and Clark's ensuing arrest and detention on charges of disorderly conduct and resisting a law enforcement officer. Their nine-count Complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985 and 1986, several theories of pendent state law claims by Clark, and two pendent loss-of-consortium claims by Mrs. Clark.

Defendants have moved under Fed.R. Civ.P. ("Rule") 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Complaint entirely as to City, Brzeczek and Nolan and to dismiss all but the Section 1983 claim as to Podgorny and Wilke. In an oral bench ruling June 28 this Court (1) struck all Complaint references to Sections 1985 and 1986 and (2) refused to dismiss City, Brzeczek and Nolan from Count I's Section 1983 claim.*fn1 This opinion deals with the Complaint's various state law claims.

Facts*fn2

In April 1982 Clark and his grandson were seated in his lawfully parked automobile near 34th and Halsted Streets in Chicago. Chicago police officers Podgorny and Wilke first falsely cited Clark for illegal parking, then — without probable cause — forced Clark to go to the district police station, subjecting him in the process to unprovoked physical and verbal abuse. They then — again without reasonable cause — charged Clark with disorderly conduct and resisting an officer and detained him for a period of time. All charges against Clark have been decided in his favor.

City, Brzeczek and Nolan have engaged in a pattern of failures in the training and discipline of Chicago police officers. Those failures have created a climate that has encouraged the unlawful conduct exemplified by Podgorny's and Wilke's actions against Clark.

As a result of the conduct already described, Clark has suffered and will continue to suffer serious physical and mental injury. Mrs. Clark has in turn sustained a loss of consortium.

Clark's Pendent State Law Claims*fn3

Whenever plaintiffs stray from the mandates of Rule 8(a)(2) ("a short and plain statement of the claim") and Rule 8(e) ("simple, concise, and direct" averments), both the defendants and the court are disadvantaged in dealing with the complaint. Clark's Complaint is no exception. Its factual allegations are unduly repetitive, and it multiplies a single episode into a plethora of claims besides the Count I claim already upheld under Section 1983:

    1. Count II asserts all defendants violated Clark's
  rights under the due process clause of the Illinois
  Constitution, Ill. Const. art. I, § 2.
    2. Count III advances a claim against all defendants
  for false arrest and imprisonment.
    3. Count IV charges all defendants based on the
  Podgorny-Wilke assault and battery.
    4. Count V is a malicious prosecution action against
  all defendants.
    5. Count VI runs against City for negligence of its
  duties in the hiring, training, supervising and
  disciplining of police officers.
    6. Count VII charges City with willful and wanton
  disregard of its duties in the hiring, training,
  supervising and disciplining of police officers.

Count II

Defendants' position as to Count II is summarized succinctly at R. Mem. 3:

  There is not [a] common law claim for violation of
  one's state constitutional rights, just as there is
  not [a] cause of action which may be brought ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.