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.

Williams v. Miller

January 31, 2006

JOHNNY WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOE MILLER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

This matter comes now before the Court on four separate pending Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 13, 19, 21 and 31), filed by Defendants in regards to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, which was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 11). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to these Motions to Dismiss. (Doc. 25.) The Court granted Plaintiff's motion, allowing him until October 15, 2005 to file his Response to the motions to dismiss. (Doc. 33.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a single response or ask for further additional time.

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) consists of seven counts:

Count I - violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Joe Miller, Brian Shinkle, Kevin Kakac, Rick Snyder, Jerry Joslin, Edwards County, Illinois and Wayne County, Illinois, each in their individual and official capacities;

Count II - violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 against defendants Joe Miller, Brian Shinkle, Kevin Kakac, Rick Snyder, and Jerry Joslin;

Count III - False Imprisonment against defendants Joe Miller, Brian Shinkle, Kevin Kakac, Rick Snyder, Jerry Joslin, each in their individual capacity;

Count IV - Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress against defendants Joe Miller, Brian Shinkle, Kevin Kakac, Rick Snyder, Jerry Joslin, each in their individual capacity;

Count V - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against defendants Joe Miller, Brian Shinkle, Kevin Kakac, Rick Snyder, Jerry Joslin, each in their individual capacity;

Count VI - violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Jerry Joslin, Bob Chapman, Rick Snyder, Unknown Police Officer #1, Unknown Police Officer #2, Unknown Police Officer #3, Wayne County, Illinois, Edwards County, Illinois and City of Fairfield, Illinois, each in their individual and official capacities; and Count VII - violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Greg Balackman and Edwards County, Illinois, in their individual and official capacities.

The first Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of defendant City of Fairfield, Illinois ("Fairfield"). (Doc. 13.) In its supporting memorandum, Fairfield notes that it is only included in Count VI of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14, p. 2.) Further, Fairfield asserts that Plaintiff's claim against it is time barred under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 claims set forth in 735 ILL. COMP.STAT. 5/13-202. (Id., citing Farrell v. McDonough, 966 F.2d 279 (7th Cir. 1992).) Fairfield states that Plaintiff's claim against it appears to have accrued sometime between January 2001 and May 2001. (Id.) Therefore, neither Plaintiff's original complaint (filed on August 14, 2003 - Doc. 1) nor his Amended Complaint is timely and Fairfield requests the Court to dismiss Count VI of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and dismiss Fairfield as a party to the suit. (Id.)

The next Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Joslin, Chapman, and Wayne County, Illinois, requesting pursuant to Rule 12(b) that Counts I through VI be dismissed. (Doc. 19.) As substantiated in Defendants' supporting memorandum (Doc. 20), it is asserted that Counts I, II and VI of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations set forth in 735 ILL.COMP.STAT. 5/13-202. Similarly, Defendants also argue that Counts III, IV and V are barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in § 8-101 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act. (Doc. 19, ¶ 2, citing 745 ILL.COMP.STAT. 5/8-101.) Lastly,

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim against "unknown defendants" or "unknown law enforcement officers." The Defendants thereby request the Court to dismiss all counts of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed against said Defendants.

The third Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Snyder, Balackman, Miller, Shinkle and Kakac. (Doc. 21.) In their motion, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's cause of action against defendants Shinkle, Kakac and Chapman are barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in 735 ILL. COMP.STAT. 5/13-202.*fn1 (Id. at ¶ 4, citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985).) Moreover, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against any of the moving Defendants, as all of the counts in his Amended Complaint are based upon new theories (in other words, they do not relate back to the counts in his initial complaint) and therefore time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations. (Id. at ¶¶ 7-10.) Additionally, Counts I through IV appear to attack the validity of Plaintiff's conviction and confinement, which Defendants assert, is not allowed. (Id. at ¶ 11, citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).) Finally, Defendants offer their affirmative defense of prosecutorial immunity, regarding Plaintiff's claims against defendants Shinkle and Kakac, as well as ...


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.