The opinion of the court was delivered by: Aspen, District Judge:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Linda Baltz ("Baltz"), a Will County Deputy Sheriff, brought
this suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
against Will County Sheriff John Shelley ("the Sheriff"), two
deputy sheriffs, Craig Butkovick ("Butkovick") and Paul Kaupus
("Kaupus"), Will County ("the County") and a private
psychiatrist, Dr. William Hilger ("Dr. Hilger"). Before the
Court are motions to dismiss filed by the several defendants.
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the County's
motion, denies Dr. Hilger's motion and grants the Sheriff's
motion in part.
We cannot grant the motion to dismiss unless it appears
beyond doubt that Baltz can prove no set of facts entitling her
to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, ___ U.S. ___, ___,
104 S.Ct. 2229, 2233, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984); Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). We
must take as true, moreover, all material allegations of fact
in the complaint. With these standards in mind, we turn to
Baltz's complaint and defendants' challenge to it.
I. The Allegations of Fact
The story told in the complaint can only be described as
strange. Baltz worked as a deputy sheriff in the County until
February 23, 1983, the first day of the bizarre sequence of
events described in the complaint.
The Sheriff and the County allegedly have a policy which
empowers the Sheriff to use unfettered discretion in demanding
that a deputy submit to a psychological exam. Dr. Hilger
apparently contracts with the County to perform these exams.
Under the policy, the Sheriff may suspend a deputy until she
agrees to submit to an exam. The Sheriff may fire any deputy
who refuses to be tested.
Sometime in early 1983, the Sheriff demanded that Baltz
submit to a psychological exam with Dr. Hilger. She was
suspended until she agreed to meet with Dr. Hilger. Under
threat of losing her job, Baltz agreed to meet with Dr. Hilger
at her home at 10:00 p.m. on February 23, 1983.*fn1 Allegedly
under orders from the Sheriff, Dr. Hilger arrived at Baltz's
home with Deputies Butkovick and Kaupus, who were in full
uniform. Without probable cause, provocation or search warrant,
Dr. Hilger ordered the two deputies to search Baltz's home,
which they did, despite Baltz's protests. After finishing the
search,*fn2 the three defendants — allegedly acting with the
Sheriff's knowledge and approval — demanded that Baltz
accompany them to the County jail. Baltz protested and demanded
to be shown an arrest warrant, but Dr. Hilger told her that no
arrest warrant had been issued but that she had to obey their
demand to leave with them. During all of this, Baltz's two
children had become hysterical, which must not have been
ameliorated when Dr. Hilger allegedly told them that their
mother would kill them and then herself if she were not
Dr. Hilger and the two deputies took plaintiff away, against
her will, at about 2:30 on the morning of February 24. Without
"booking" her, advising her of any charges or taking her before
a judge or magistrate, defendants jailed her.
Several hours later, about noon on the 24th, Dr. Hilger gave
Baltz the following choices: she could remain in jail, be
admitted to Tinley Park Mental Institution or be admitted to
St. Joseph's Hospital for at least seven days. During all of
this time, Baltz was not allowed to call a lawyer. Confronted
with this limited range of choices, Baltz "chose" to be
admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital. The complaint alleges that
there was no medical or phychological need for such admission.
Baltz asked the Sheriff to be reinstated to her job. The
Sheriff refused, demanding that she first submit to intensive
psychotherapy with Dr. Hilger. Apparently feeling that Dr.
Hilger had not established good rapport with her, Baltz refused
to let him test or treat her. Instead, she underwent testing at
her own expense. The testing showed that she was fit to work,
but the Sheriff refused for several months to reinstate her.
Finally, after hiring private counsel and undergoing more
psychological tests at her own expense, Baltz was reinstated.
The complaint alleges that the Sheriff knew and approved of
the above acts. Moreover, the defendants allegedly conspired to
do the above acts in order to deprive Baltz of her civil
The complaint contains four "counts." Counts I and II are
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn3 Count I alleges that the
above acts deprived Baltz of "her civil rights and of the the
protections guaranteed her under the United States and Illinois
Constitutions." No specific constitutional provision is
mentioned. Count II alleges that the Sheriff's department's
"customs, procedures, policies and methods of operation"
deprived Baltz of her rights to due process of law. Count III
alleges a pendent state claim of false arrest and imprisonment.
Count IV alleges a state claim of intentional infliction of
In addition to answering, the Sheriff has moved to dismiss
two parts of the complaint. First, he argues that to the extent
that the complaint challenges the general policy of requiring
deputies to undergo psychiatric tests, it fails to state a
claim. Second, he argues that the facts alleged in the
complaint are not outrageous enough to make out the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The other defendants have not answered, but have moved to
dismiss the claims against them. Dr. Hilger asserts that as a
private party he did not act "under color of state law," either
individually or in conspiracy with the other defendants. The
County asserts that as a matter of Illinois law it is distinct
from the Sheriff's department, and thus cannot be held liable