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.

Pacheco v. Will County Sheriff's Office

August 9, 2010

MARY E. PACHECO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Amy J. St. Eve United States District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge

On September 25, 2009, Plaintiff Mary E. Pacheco filed the instant seven-count Second Amended Complaint based on violations of her constitutional rights, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. The remaining Defendants in this lawsuit are the Will County Sheriff's Office, Paul Kaupas, Martin Nowak, Patrick Maher, David Van Dyke ("Sheriff's Office Defendants"), and Dona Van Roosendaal. The remaining claims in this lawsuit are Counts I through VI of the Second Amended Complaint. Before the Court is Van Roosendaal's and the Sheriff's Office Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motions and dismisses this case in its entirety. Further, the Court dismisses Defendants' motion to strike as moot.

BACKGROUND

I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1 assists the Court by "organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side propose[s] to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence." Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000). In short, the purpose of Rule 56.1 statements is to identify the relevant admissible evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006) ("statement of material facts did [] not comply with Rule 56.1 as it failed to adequately cite the record and was filled with irrelevant information, legal arguments, and conjecture"). Moreover, it is well-established that courts may only consider admissible evidence in determining motions for summary judgment. See Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir. 2009).

II. Relevant Facts

A. Parties

Defendant Will County Sheriff's Office is a department of Will County, which is a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois. (R. 157-1, Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) Defendant Paul Kaupus is the Sheriff of Will County, Defendant Martin Nowak is the Undersheriff, Defendant Steve McGrath is the head of the Internal Affairs Division, Defendant Patrick Maher is the Chief Deputy, and Defendant David Van Dyke is the Deputy Chief. (Id.) Defendant Dona Van Roosendaal is a private citizen. (R. 151-1, Van Roosendaal Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 2.) Pacheco began working for the Will County Sheriff's Office in 1988 as a Deputy Sheriff. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 4.)

B. Investigations of Citizen Complaints

The Will County Sheriff's Office General Order No. ADM 112-93 contains the policies for the administrative review of employee misconduct and requires that the office must review all complaints or allegations of employee misconduct. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 11; R. 165-1, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 1.) Depending on the type and nature of the complaint or allegation of misconduct, either a supervisor reviews the complaint or refers the complaint to Internal Affairs for a formal administrative review. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 11.) Formal investigations are required where the allegations of misconduct, if sustained, could result in discharge or suspension in excess of three days or when a complaint is filed alleging official or criminal misconduct. (Id. ¶ 12.)

On September 12, 2006, Van Roosendaal filed a citizen complaint against Pacheco alleging that Pacheco used her position in law enforcement to wrongfully obtain information in relation to a car driven by Pacheco's nephew, Richie Pacheco, who is Van Roosendaal's son. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 18, Ex. 6, Citizen Compl. at 6; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 39.) Sometime after September 26, 2006, an Internal Affairs Investigation was initiated (designated as Internal Investigation "06-2006") pursuant to General Order No. ADM 112-93 regarding Pacheco's possible violations of Section 1 (Abuse of Position), Section 10 (Conduct Unbecoming), Section 23 (Intervention), and Section 33 (Altercations) of the Will County Sheriff's Office Rules of Conduct. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 19.) At the close of Internal Investigation 06-2006, Internal Affairs presented its sustained findings to Sheriff Kaupus. (Id. ¶ 21.) Sheriff Kaupus then filed Cause No. 06-2006 against Pacheco with the Will County Sheriff's Merit Commission ("Merit Commission") alleging the above violations. (Id. ¶ 22.)

While Cause No. 06-2006 was pending before the Merit Commission, Mayor Henry Barry of Rockdale, Illinois filed another citizen complaint against Pacheco on December 7, 2006. (Id. ¶ 23.) Mayor Barry alleged that on December 5, 2006 Pacheco appeared at a public Rockdale Village Board meeting to discuss her application for a building permit to construct a new garage at her residence at which time she stated to Mayor Barry, "I don't know what you have been smoking, but there is an alley there," and then publicly accused Mayor Barry of drinking and driving stating "if you are driving and I am on duty, you will get a DUI." (Id. ¶ 24.) On December 19, 2006, an Internal Affairs Investigation was initiated (designated as Internal Investigation "08-2006") regarding Pacheco's possible violations of Administrative Order Number 105 (Code of Ethics), Section 1 (Abuse of Position), Section 2 (Abuse of Process), Section 10 (Conduct Unbecoming), and 720 ILCS 5/33-3 (Official Misconduct) in relation to the Mayor Barry incident. (Id. ¶ 25.) At the close of Internal Investigation 08-2006, Internal Affairs presented its sustained findings to Sheriff Kaupus. (Id. ¶ 27.) Sheriff Kaupus then filed Cause No. 08-2006 with the Merit Commission. (Id. ¶ 28.) Meanwhile, on December 8, 2006, Deputy Chief Patrick Maher placed Pacheco on administrative leave with pay. (Id. ¶ 26.) Pacheco remained on paid administrative leave through May 5, 2008. (Id. ¶ 42.) The Merit Commission hearing of Cause Nos. 06-2006 and 08-2006 proceeded on July 11, 2008, August 7, 2008, and August 8, 2008. (Id. ¶ 29.) On August 18, 2008, the Merit Commission entered an order finding that Pacheco violated Section 1 (Abuse of Position) by using her official position as Deputy Sheriff to initiate an investigation in an attempt to obtain unauthorized control over a motor vehicle on behalf of her nephew. (Id. ¶ 33.) The Merit Commission also found that Pacheco violated Section 10 ...


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.