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.

WADE v. OSCAR L. BYLES

May 25, 1995

MELVIN WADE, Plaintiff,
v.
OSCAR L. BYLES, and T-FORCE SECURITY CO., INC., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, SR.

 CHARLES R. NORGLE, SR., District Judge:

 Before the court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Third Amended Complaint ("Complaint"). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

 FACTS1

 Melvin Wade is an Illinois citizen and resident of Chicago. On August 10, 1992, Defendant Oscar L. Byles ("Byles") was employed by Defendant T-Force Security Company, Incorporated ("T-Force") as a security guard at a Chicago Housing Authority ("CHA") owned building. At approximately 3:30 p.m., in the foyer of the building, Byles shot Wade in the thigh. *fn2" Wade contends that Byles was a state actor at the time of the incident, and he is in this court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Wade also asserts several state law claims. Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Count I contending that Wade has not presented evidence supporting his claim that Byles was acting under color of state law at the time of the incident.

 T-Force is a private Illinois corporation. Byles was at all times relevant to this litigation, a security guard and private citizen employed by T-Force. Byles was never employed by, or acted as the agent of, the CHA. Wade asserts that Byles was an agent of the CHA. He supports this assertion by citing to two inter-office CHA memoranda. The first is from the Director of Contract Security to the Chief Administrator Development Operations directing him to be sure that all CHA Development Managers, Building Managers, and Assistant Managers be aware of the specific duties and responsibilities of the contract guards. The second memorandum is from the same person to the Operations Administrator advising him of the duties and responsibilities of the contract security guards. Attached to each memorandum is a list detailing those duties and responsibilities.

 Wade's contention that these memoranda establish the CHA's direction and control of individual security guards is meritless. These are simply outlines of the guards responsibilities. Wade has presented no evidence that the CHA controlled or directed the day to day activities of the contract security guards. Petersen v. United States Reduction Co., 267 Ill. App. 3d 775, 641 N.E.2d 845, 204 Ill. Dec. 415, 420 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1994).

 As the security guard in the building lobby on the August 10, 1992, Byles's limited duties, as described in a CHA inter-office memorandum, were to:

 
1. Maintain security of immediate lobby area
 
2. Enforce Visitation Policy, Exclusion List & ID's
 
3. Report emergencies to Emergency Services
 
4. Prepare Incident Reports (copies to managers & Contract Security)
 
5. Sign Criminal Complaint and ...

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.