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.

Charles Warren v. John M. Briggs

July 25, 2011

CHARLES WARREN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN M. BRIGGS, TOM BOND, STEVEN SETTINGSGAARD, CITY OF PEORIA, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

E-FILED

Monday, 25 July, 2011 04:15:57 PM

Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER

Now before the Court is Defendants' John Briggs, Tom Bond, and Steven Settingsgaard's ("Individual Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment [#113] and Defendant City of Peoria's Motion for Summary Judgment [#114]. For the reasons set forth below, the Individual Defendants' Motion [#113] is GRANTED, and Defendant City of Peoria's Motion [#114] is GRANTED.

JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as the claim asserted in the Complaint presents a federal question under the United States Constitution.

LOCAL RULE 7.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 56

Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiff Charles Warren ("Warren"), who is represented by counsel, failed to comply with Local Rule 7.1 as his Response did not contain any response to the Defendants' Statement of Facts. The Court afforded Warren an additional opportunity to comply with this Rule in its text order on July 5, 2011. By virtue of this failure, the facts in Defendants' Motions are deemed uncontested and true.

The Seventh Circuit has "repeatedly . . . sustained the entry of summary judgment where the non-movant has failed to [respond] in the form called for by the pertinent rule and thereby concedes the movant's version of the facts." Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 922 (7th Cir. 1994). Despite the fact that he received notice via a text order informing him of the requirements of Local Rule 7.1, Warren has made no attempt to amend his pleadings. Accordingly, the Court will treat Defendants' Statements of Undisputed Facts as admitted.

BACKGROUND

On July 18, 2007, Plaintiff Charles Warren ("Warren"), was sitting on the side of the road at the intersection between Fairmont Drive and Fairlawn Lane. Officers John M. Briggs ("Briggs") and Tom Bond ("Bond") are City of Peoria Patrolmen. Steven M. Settingsgaard ("Settingsgaard") was the Chief of Police for the City of Peoria. On July 18, 2007, Officers Briggs and Bond arrived at the intersection where Warren was sitting, along with fire personnel, responding to a report of "man down." Officers Briggs and Bond requested that Warren leave the area as it was private property. After arguing briefly with the officers, Warren began walking alongside the curb on the right side of Fairmont Drive after crossing the street.

Officers Briggs and Bond then pulled up in their police vehicle, got out of the car, and informed Warren that he had jaywalked. They then asked Warren for identification. Warren did not provide identification and, instead, stated that his rights were being violated and asked to speak to his attorney. Officers Briggs and Bond then approached Warren and placed him under arrest, putting him face down on the ground and handcuffing him. The Officers then requested back-up, and a second police car arrived. During the arrest, Warren's wallet was taken and examined, and the Officers shone flashlights into his car.

Warren filed this action on July 16, 2008, against Briggs, Bond, Settingsgaard, and the City of Peoria. Warren also named Jim Ardis, the mayor of Peoria. On January 21, 2009, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cudmore, dismissing the claims against Defendant Ardis and the claim against Defendant Settingsgaard in his official capacity. The claims against Defendants Briggs and Bond in their official ...


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.