The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUFF
BRIAN BARNETT DUFF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The parties to this civil rights action have filed numerous motions in advance of trial. The court will forego a general description of the facts of this case, as it has provided a good introduction to the case (although things have changed a bit) in Wilson v. City of Chicago, 684 F. Supp. 982, 983-84 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
Individual Liability of Brzeczek
The first motion is from Richard Brzeczek, who contends that he is entitled in his individual capacity to summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., for those claims which Andrew Wilson states in Count 3 of this First Amended Complaint. The court in Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269, 273 (7th Cir. 1983), held that a person can be held liable in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982) only if that person caused or participated in an alleged constitutional deprivation. Wilson contends that Brzeczek caused or participated in two such deprivations, one an unconstitutionally prolonged detention and the other the subjection of Wilson to unconstitutionally excessive force. Brzeczek responds that Wilson has introduced no evidence indicating that there is a genuine issue over whether Brzeczek was involved in the latter deprivation.
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court must take all factual inferences against the moving party and in favor of the opposing party. Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142, 90 S. Ct. 1598 (1970). Taking the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits on file in the light most favorable to Wilson, this court finds that there is a genuine issue as to whether Brzeczek tolerated, caused or condoned the activities Wilson alleges were unconstitutional. While Wilson has put forth little evidence of Brzeczek's involvement prior to Wilson's arrest, Wilson has evidence that once Brzeczek was told about Wilson's beating, Brzeczek did little other than write a letter to the State's Attorney indicating he would not begin an official inquiry until later. A reasonable jury could infer from Brzeczek's subsequent inactivity and the notoriety of the officers' alleged activities that Brzeczek was covering up his officers' illegal acts, which permits a further reasonable inference that Brzeczek condoned or encouraged this conduct. This latter activity, if proved, would meet Rascon's standard of affirmative causation. For this reason, this court denies Brzeczek's motion for summary judgment on Wilson's claims that Brzeczek was individually liable.
Brzeczek joins the City of Chicago in contending that they are entitled to summary judgment on Wilson's claims of official liability in Count 3. They first submit that Wilson cannot hold them liable for Wilson's allegedly prolonged detention under § 1983. A person may recover under § 1983 only for injuries resulting from deprivations of federal constitutional and statutory rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 693, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978). The fact that a municipality has a policy that leads to unconstitutional conduct is irrelevant unless the person can show that he or she is personally aggrieved by it. See Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 89 L. Ed. 2d 806, 106 S. Ct. 1571 (1986).
Wilson contends that his twenty-four-hour detention following his arrest, prior to his appearance before a judicial officer, violated three of his rights. Wilson first claims that his detention deprived him of his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to be informed of the charges against him. The scope of an arrestee's Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the charges against him is unclear, as most courts that have discussed this right have focused on the sufficiency of the indictment or formal charge. See, for example, Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 8 L. Ed. 2d 240, 82 S. Ct. 1038 (1962); Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590, 94 S. Ct. 2887 (1974). Those cases that have discussed the right have dealt with it either in a brief fashion, see Damm v. Sparkman, 609 F. Supp. 749, 755 (D. Kan. 1985), or in a situation where the period between arrest and arraignment was short, see O'Hagan v. Soto, 523 F. Supp. 625, 628-29 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). The notice requirements of the Sixth Amendment, like the other rights provided in the Amendment, are designed to enable a criminal defendant to present a full defense. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 818, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 95 S. Ct. 2525 (1975) ("In short, the Amendment constitutionalizes the right to an adversary criminal trial to make a defense as we know it.").
Wilson does not indicate how the delay in bringing him before a judicial officer infringed on those interests which the notice provision of the Sixth Amendment protects. It is undisputed that police officers informed Wilson why he was arrested. While this alone does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment's notice provisions, it is also undisputed that Wilson later received formal notice. In opposing the City and Brzeczek's motion on this point, Wilson suggests that because of the delay in receiving this notice, he was unable to get the assistance of counsel or keep from incriminating himself. As will become clear below, however, the absence of notice hardly caused these alleged injuries -- if anything, the deficient notice was only coincident with these injuries. As Wilson can point to no other constitutional injury resulting from the delay in receiving full notice, he may not pursue his action for recovery for injuries stemming from lack of full notice prior to his arraignment.
Wilson next contends that the detention resulted in deprivation of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to counsel. The City and Brzeczek argue that Wilson is collaterally estopped from pressing this argument in this case, however, as the Illinois Supreme Court decided that issue in People v. Wilson, 116 Ill. 2d 29, 506 N.E.2d 571, 106 Ill. Dec. 771 (1987). The parties do not dispute that Wilson could prevent relitigation of certain issues in this case. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 105, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308, 101 S. Ct. 411 (1980). Whether Wilson prevents relitigation of Wilson's claim of a denial of his right to counsel depends on Illinois' law of collateral estoppel. See Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 313-14, 76 L. Ed. 2d 595, 103 S. Ct. 2368 (1983) (collateral estoppel effect of state court judgment is determined by rendering state's law).
Under Illinois law, a party is estopped from litigating issues decided in a previous case
when [that] party or someone in privity with [that] party participates in two separate and consecutive cases arising on different causes of action and some controlling fact or question material to the determination of both causes has been adjudicated against that party in the former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Housing Authority v. YMCA, 101 Ill. 2d 246, 252, 461 N.E.2d 959, 962, 78 Ill. Dec. 125 (1984). Wilson was certainly a party to Wilson, and this case certainly presents a different cause of action from that in Wilson. The question of whether the People of the State of Illinois denied Wilson his right to counsel by detaining him for twenty-four hours was a controlling question in Wilson, and was material to the Illinois Supreme Court's determination in that case. See Wilson, 116 Ill.2d at ...