The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
The plaintiff proceeds against the defendants for false arrest/imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and on supplemental state law claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Before the court is the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which is granted for the reasons below.
Summary Judgment Standard
A party moving for summary judgment must show, from the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, . . ." that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the "moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir. 2001), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986);Fed. R. Civ. P.56(c). This burden can be satisfied by "'showing'--that is, pointing out to the district court--that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. If such a showing is made, the burden shifts to the non-movant to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Outlaw, 259 F.3d at 837. A nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must demonstrate that there is admissible evidence that will support its position. Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 23 F.3d 174, 178 (7th Cir. 1994).
In determining whether factual issues exist, the court must view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Beraha v. Baxter Health Corp., 956 F.2d 1436, 1440 (7th Cir. 1992). However, Rule 56(c) "mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof.
These facts are taken essentially verbatim from the defendants' proposed undisputed facts (d/e 23, pp. 2-5), to the extent material and not sufficiently disputed by the plaintiff.
1. Plaintiff, Charlie Stainback, Jr., is a resident of the State of Illinois presently incarcerated at Danville Correctional Center in Danville. (Exhibit H, Stainback Deposition Transcript, Pg. 5, Lines 18-24).
2. Defendant, Vincent Moreth, is and was the duly elected State's Attorney for Macoupin County on August 11, 2003 through December 8, 2003 and for all relevant periods of time applicable to plaintiff's complaint. (Exhibit B, Moreth Affidavit, Par. 1).
3. Defendant, Timothy Lovejoy, is and was employed by the Macoupin County Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff on August 11, 2003 through December 8, 2003 and for all relevant periods of time applicable to plaintiff's complaint. (Exhibit A, Lovejoy Affidavit, Par. 1).
Criminal Proceedings in Macoupin County
4. On July 19, 2003, plaintiff was arrested on a charge of Domestic Battery against Carla Lewis. (Ex. H, Pgs. 14-16).
5. On July 21, 2003, Judge Carmody issued an ex-parte Order of Protection against Charlie Stainback, Jr. requiring him to refrain from having physical contact with Carla Lewis. (Exhibit J, Order; Ex. H, Pg. 21, Line 2).
6. On July 21, 2003, Officer Ree, Macoupin County Sheriff's Department, served the Order of Protection on plaintiff while he was in custody of the Macoupin County Jail. (Exhibit K, ...