United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
July 6, 2004.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge
In his Fourth Amended Complaint (the Complaint), Plaintiff
Stanely Majka alleges that while he was under the custody and
control of the Cook County Sheriff's Department, Defendant
Michael Sheahan, through his employees and agents, engaged in
numerous negligent acts or omissions, which caused Majka to
sustain severe and lasting injuries. These negligent acts include
failure to adequately train and supervise employees and agents,
failure to follow proper procedures, and negligent hiring of
Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint, pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is
proper where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove
no set of facts in support of his claim, which would entitle him
to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). In
reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must construe all
allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded facts and allegations as
true. Bontkowski v. First Nat'l Bank, 998 F.2d 459, 461 (7th
Defendant argues that the remaining Count of Majka's Complaint
(Count II), should be dismissed because it alleged intentional
torts for which Defendant Sheahan cannot be held liable. In
Illinois, the Tort Immunities Act, 745 ILCS 10/2, expressly
shields all public employees from liability related to
intentional torts committed by other persons, provided they are
acting within the scope of their employment. The same bar,
however, does not apply to acts of negligence or omissions.
According to 55 ILCS 5/3-6016, the sheriff is liable for his
deputy's negligent conduct. After careful review of Majka's
Complaint, I find that the claims are based on either negligent
acts or omission, not intentional acts. Since Defendant can be
held liable for such actions, the Complaint may stand
For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Fourth Amended Complaint is DENIED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.