The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Joan B. Gottschall
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Defendants Frank Mack and the City of Chicago (collectively, the "City") move to dismiss several counts of Plaintiff Robert Boyd's Civil Complaint (the "Complaint"), which seeks to hold the City and various unknown officers liable under federal and state law for Boyd's July 31, 2005 arrest and subsequent prosecutions. The City contends that several counts of Boyd's Complaint should be dismissed because the claims contained in those counts are time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
According to the Complaint, on July 31, 2005, Defendant Mack and other unknown officers (collectively, the "Officers") executed a fraudulent warrant, then searched Boyd's home, where they claimed to have found guns, cocaine, and marijuana. Compl. ¶¶ 7-10. The Officers arrested Boyd the same day. Id. ¶ 11. On July 31, 2006 -- exactly one year after the initial search -- the Officers searched the apartment of Boyd's acquaintance, where they found additional drugs, for which Boyd was also charged. Id. ¶¶ 14-16. Prosecutions ensued. The Officers failed to come to several court dates; eventually, the first charges against Boyd were dismissed on March 13, 2008, and the second charges were likewise dismissed on June 3, 2008. Id. ¶ 17.
On April 30, 2009, Boyd brought this suit. The Complaint sets forth four federal law claims: Unlawful Search and Seizure (Count I); False Arrest and Unlawful Detention (Count III); Conspiracy (Count IV); and Due Process (Count VI). The Complaint also sets forth three state law claims: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count II); Malicious Prosecution (Count V); and Respondeat Superior (Count VII).
Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must "construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded facts alleged, and drawing all possible inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor." Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Legal conclusions, however, are not entitled to any assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940 (2009). The plaintiff need not plead particularized facts, but the factual allegations in the complaint must be sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face . . . ." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
"A statute of limitations defense, while not normally part of a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), is appropriate where 'the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense, such as when a complaint plainly reveals that an action is untimely under the governing statute of limitations.'" Andonissamy v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 547 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 842 (7th Cir. 2005)).
The City moves to dismiss "plaintiff's Fourth, Fourteenth Amendment [sic], state law Malicious Prosecution and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims." Mot.
1. The Court Addresses These Arguments in Turn
1. Unlawful Search and Seizure (Count I)
Boyd brings his unlawful search claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on an alleged violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendant argues that this claim must be dismissed as time-barred. Id. To resolve whether the statute of limitations bars Boyd's § 1983 claim, the court must determine: under federal law, when Boyd's claim accrued; which state statute of limitations applies; and whether any state tolling doctrine applies to extend the ...