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.

Corder v. City of Chicago

October 18, 2010

CORDER, ET AL.
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL.



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to dismiss [23] is granted in part and denied in part. Eric Corders' illegal search and illegal execution of a search warrant claims are dismissed with prejudice because they are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Eric's false arrest claim is dismissed without prejudice because it is Heck-barred. Eric's and Elizabeth's intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are dismissed with prejudice because they are time-barred. Defendants' answer as to the remaining claim is to be filed on or before 11/8/10. As all of Eric Corder's claims are dismissed, the Clerk is directed to dismiss Eric Corder as a Co-Plaintiff. A status hearing is scheduled for 11/15/10 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff Elizabeth Corder, either in person or through counsel, is required to attend the status hearing. Failure to attend may result in the case being dismissed for lack of prosecution.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs, Eric and Elizabeth Corder, bring this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Eric Corder brings claims for an alleged illegal search, false arrest, illegal execution of a search warrant, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Elizabeth (Eric's mother) brings claims for an alleged illegal search and intentional infliction of emotion distress. Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss.

It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000). In addition, when considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court takes the allegations in the complaint as true, viewing all facts -- as well as any inferences reasonably drawn therefrom -- in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Marshall-Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., 205 F.3d 323, 326 (7th Cir. 2000); Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 508, n. 1, (2002)). Some factual allegations, however, may be "so sketchy or implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice to defendants of the plaintiff's claims." Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2007)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires, in relevant part, that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Rule 8 reflects a liberal notice pleading requirement that focuses the 'litigation on the merits of the claim' rather than some technicality that might keep a plaintiff out of court. Brooks, 578 F.3d at 580 (quoting Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514). Alleging specific facts is not required. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). However, a plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff's claim must be "plausible" in that there are "enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" that supports the plaintiff's allegations. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 556.

Furthermore, the district court may take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment. See Anderson v. Simon, 217 F.3d 472, 474-75 (7th Cir. 2000); General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiffs allege that on March 28, 2008, Chicago Police Officer Clinton Sebastian coerced Marcie Nichols, by threatening her with a false arrest for cocaine possession, to accompany him to Cook County Court to proffer fabricated testimony to gain a search warrant for Plaintiffs' residence and Eric's person. Officer Sebastian swore to the contents of the affidavit to gain a search warrant for an alleged revolver in Eric's bedroom. Officer Sebastian knew or should have known the affidavit was false because he fabricated and rehearsed it with Nichols, who had a known drug addiction. Officer Sebastian knew that Nichols did not reside with Eric nor was she a visitor to his residence during the material time periods.

The next day (sixteen hours after obtaining the search warrant), Officer Sebastian, Officer Donna Walsh, and fifteen other Chicago police officers made a forced entry, by means of a battering ram, through the rear door of Plaintiffs' residence. No police officers knocked and announced their presence before making the forced entry.

Officer Sebastian found Eric in a bedroom in the basement. Officer Sebastian threw Eric to the floor and pointed his gun to Eric's head even though Eric was unarmed, cooperative, and not resisting arrest. Other officers, with guns drawn, ordered Elizabeth out of her bedroom in spite of seeing that she was unarmed, cooperative, and seventy-five years old.

Officer Sebastian arrested Eric without probable cause for being a felon in possession of a firearm, although he did not find Eric in possession of any firearm. Officers Sebastian and Walsh wrote and swore to false police reports regarding the arrest. Eric was subsequently charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Following his arrest, Eric filed a motion for a hearing based on Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and a motion to suppress evidence based on the alleged illegal execution of the search warrant. Eric's motions in his criminal proceedings made the same argument regarding the affidavit, the resulting search warrant, and the alleged illegal search as are raised in the instant suit. The motions included an affidavit by Elizabeth in support of Eric's arguments. On June 19, 2009, Eric's motions were denied in the criminal proceedings. Eric's subsequent motion to reconsider was also denied. On October 5, 2009, Eric pled guilty to the charge of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. Eric did not appeal that conviction.

Defendants first argue that Eric's illegal search claims, based on the alleged illegal search warrant and illegal execution of that warrant, are barred ...


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.