The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James B. Zagel
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Hans Kuhn and Defendant Thaddeus Goodlow had a dispute that resulted in Plaintiff's arrest. Plaintiff later was convicted of disorderly conduct. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also brings false arrest and false imprisonment claims against Defendant under Illinois common law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted.
Defendant moved to strike much of Plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) statement of additional facts, many of Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) statement of undisputed facts, and Plaintiff's affidavit. However, as my discussion below will show, I need not rule on Defendant's motions to strike in order to grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The following facts are not disputed, except where indicated. Plaintiff renovated a house he owned in the City of Markham, Illinois. Plaintiff arranged for Defendant, a City of Markham Building Inspector, to inspect the house for the purposes of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy ("C.O.").
Defendant inspected the house on October 22, 2007. The parties dispute the content of their conversation after the inspection and whether the house was "up to code." Plaintiff leased the refurbished house to a tenant.
Later that day, Defendant returned to Plaintiff's property accompanied by City of Markham Police Officer K. Muldrow. Defendant observed Plaintiff's tenant moving his belongings into Plaintiff's house. Defendant claims he informed the tenant that he could not begin living in the house because the house did not have a C.O.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff arrived at the property. The parties disagree about what happened next. Defendant claims that Plaintiff became angry, began yelling at Defendant, and did not obey Officer Muldrow's instructions to calm down. Plaintiff contends that he conducted himself calmly. Officer Muldrow arrested Plaintiff.
Defendant claims that Officer Muldrow arrested Plaintiff for disorderly conduct, the crime of which Plaintiff later was convicted, based on Plaintiff's behavior before the arrest. Plaintiff alleges that Officer Muldrow actually arrested Plaintiff for a C.O. violation and later conspired with Defendant to change the charges to disorderly conduct.
Rule 56 provides that summary judgment should be granted when the evidence shows "that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists only if a reasonable jury could decide for the nonmoving party based on the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. ...