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.

Goodman v. Clark

October 22, 2009

RENEE GOODMAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFF,
v.
TASK FORCE OFFICER ADAM CLARK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Defendants' motions to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, we grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and transfer the instant action to the Northern District of Indiana pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (Rule 12(b)(3)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406.

BACKGROUND

According to Plaintiffs, at approximately 6:00 a.m. on December 28, 2007, Defendant Agents and Officers executed a search warrant at Plaintiffs' residence located at 5623 Maywood Avenue in Hammond, Indiana (Residence). (A. Compl. Par. 17). Plaintiffs state that the search warrant provided for the seizure of any evidence related to the robbery of an armored car in Calumet City, Illinois. (A. Compl. Par. 20). Plaintiffs allege that, in executing the search warrant, Defendant Agents and Officers used forced entry and discharged "at least two 'flash' or 'concussion' grenades which caused a loud explosion, flashes of light, and smoke."

(A. Compl. Par. 23). Plaintiffs state that during the execution of the search warrant, Defendant Agents and Officers were dressed in black combat attire and displayed various weapons. (A. Compl. Par. 22). According to Plaintiffs, Defendant Agents and Officers "ordered [Plaintiffs] to the first floor [of the Residence] at gunpoint" and handcuffed Plaintiffs' hands behind their backs. (A. Compl. Par. 24). Plaintiffs state that various law enforcement officers interrogated Plaintiffs while in Plaintiffs' Residence. (A. Compl. Par. 25). Plaintiffs claim that shortly after the interrogation, Plaintiffs were removed from their Residence while in handcuffs and taken to the Hammond Police Department. (A. Compl. Par. 26). Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Agents and Officers arrested Plaintiffs without an arrest warrant, without probable cause, and without any other legal justification. (A. Compl. Par. 32). According to Plaintiffs, during their unlawful arrest, Defendant Agents and Officers pushed, pulled, grabbed, kicked, forcefully maneuvered, and physically searched Plaintiffs without any provocation or lawful justification, and Plaintiffs sustained injuries as a result. (A. Compl. Par. 38).

Plaintiffs allege that when they arrived at the Hammond Police Department, they were "each placed in locked rooms and jail cells and were separately and continuously interrogated by various Defendant law enforcement officers." (A. Compl. Par. 27). Plaintiffs state that in connection with the search, they were "each arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, and otherwise processed." (A. Compl. Par. 28). Plaintiffs claim that they were "formally charged with the offense of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon and FBI hold." (A. Compl. Par. 29). Plaintiffs allege that they were released on December 28, 2007, at approximately 10:00 p.m., without making a court appearance or posting bail. (A. Compl. Par. 30).

Plaintiffs brought the instant action and include claims brought against Task Force Officer Adam Clark, Christopher M. Soyez, Lori C. Warren, Carrie J. Landau, Christopher Hendon, Ted May, and Christopher Crocker (collectively referred to as "FBI Agents"), both as individuals and in their official capacities as law enforcement officers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Raymond Hladek, Sgt. G. Barich, Inv. F/N/U Pieczuel, Inv. Detective Casey Erickson, E.T. William Gavin, Dante Zorzi, Tact Officer F/N/U Kwiatkowski, Sgt. F/N/U Urbanek, E.T. F/N/U Lucius, Detective Kevin Rapacz, David Miro, F/N/U Oliva, and unknown police officers for the Calumet City, Illinois Police Department (collectively referred to as "Calumet City Police Officers"), both as individuals and in their official capacities as law enforcement officers for the Calumet City, Illinois Police Department; and Detective Adam Clark (Detective Clark), Chief Brian Miller (Miller), Lt. Richard Hoyda (Hoyda), L/N/U Cardwell (Cardwell), L/N/U Eidam (Eidam), L/N/U Roger (Roger), L/N/U Karl (Karl), L/N/U Dale (Dale), L/N/U Barrett (Barrett), L/N/U Campos (Campos), L/N/U Finely (Finely), L/N/U Brian (Brian), L/N/U Raymond (Raymond), L/N/U Miller (Miller), L/N/U Kalin (Kalin), L/N/U Edward (Edward), L/N/U Donald (Donald), L/N/U Holloway (Holloway), L/N/U Stephanie (Stephanie), and Defendant unknown police officers for the City of Hammond, Indiana Police Department (collectively referred to as "Hammond Police Officers"), both as individuals and in their official capacities as law enforcement officers for the City of Hammond, Indiana Police Department, for false arrest and illegal imprisonment in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau Narcotics, 403 U.S. 338 (1971) (Count I), Section 1983 excessive force claims and Bivens claims brought against FBI Agents, Calumet City Police Officers, and Hammond Police Officers (Count II), Section 1983 failure to intervene claims and Bivens claims brought against FBI Agents, Calumet City Police Officers, and Hammond Police Officers (Count III), Section 1983 conspiracy claims and Bivens claims brought against FBI Agents, Calumet City Police Officers, and Hammond Police Officers (Count IV), state law battery claims brought against Calumet City Police Officers and Hammond Police Officers (Count V), state law assault claims brought against Calumet City Police Officers and Hammond Police Officers (Count VI), state law false imprisonment claims brought against Calumet City Police Officers and Hammond Police Officers (Count VII), state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claims brought against Calumet City Police Officers and Hammond Police Officers (Count VIII), respondeat superior claims brought against Calumet City, Illinois, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, (Calumet City) and the City of Hammond, an Indiana Municipal Corporation (City of Hammond) (Count IX), and indemnification claims brought against Calumet City and the City of Hammond (Count X). The City of Hammond, Miller, Hoyda, Cardwell, Eidam, Roger, Karl, Dale, Barrett, Campos, Finely, Brian, Raymond, Miller, Kalin, Edward, Donald, Holloway, Stephanie, and Defendant unknown police officers for the City of Hammond, Indiana Police Department (collectively referred to as "Hammond Defendants") have filed the instant motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (Rule 12(b)(2)), Rule 12(b)(3), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(4), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5).

We note that while Detective Clark is a Hammond Police Officer, he is not included in the Hammond Defendants' motion to dismiss. We further note that Plaintiffs have indicated in their response to Hammond Defendants' motion to dismiss that the L/N/U designations should actually be F/N/U designations. For the purposes of the instant motion, the Court will maintain the designations as they are listed in the amended complaint.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Rule 12(b)(3) provides that a party may move to dismiss an action when the action is not filed in the proper venue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). If the court finds that venue is improper, the court "shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought."

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In analyzing whether the "interest of justice" supports transferring a case, the court must focus on the "efficient administration of the court system." Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works,796 F.2d 217, 221 (7th Cir. 1986)(applying the interest of justice analysis to a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).

DISCUSSION

Hammond Defendants argue that the Northern District of Illinois is not a proper venue for this action and move for ...


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.