The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael M. Mihm United States District Court Judge Central District of Illinois
Wednesday, 14 September, 2011 01:20:26 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
Now before this Court are (1) Plaintiffs Evelyn and Alfred Cote's ("the Cotes") Supplemental Motion for Leave to File the Revised Complaint [#113]; (2) Defendants Tom Hopp's and Sarah Houston's Motion for Reconsideration [#109]; (3) Defendant Dan Leezer's Motion for Reconsideration [#110]; (4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Revive Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [#117]; (5) Plaintiffs' Affidavit in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#119], Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#120], and Plaintiffs' Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#122]; and (6) Defendant Tom Hopp's and Sarah Houston's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [#121].
For the reasons stated for herein, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint [#115] is STRICKEN. Defendants' Motions [#109, 110] are GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Leave to File the Revised Complaint as of 7/15/2011 [#113] is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Revive Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [#117] is DENIED.
Because Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#119], Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#120], and Plaintiffs' Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment [#122] all attack Motions that are herein denied, these documents need no further consideration. Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment [#121] is MOOT as there are no pending dispositive motions. Parties have 14 days from the date of this Order to file a dispositive motion, if any. Any dispositive motions must conform to Local Rule 7.1. Likewise, any responses and replies to such dispositive motions shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7.1.
Plaintiffs filed their pro se Complaint on February 17, 2009, and this case was assigned to Judge Harold A. Baker. After determining that the case was not a prisoner case and after denying Plaintiffs' petition to proceed in forma pauperis, this case was transferred to Judge Michael M. Mihm on May 24, 2009.
On or around June 23, 2007, Plaintiffs' son was driving his brother's car when he was pulled over and arrested by Scott Cowser ("Cowser"), a Hancock County Deputy Sheriff, for driving with a suspended license. Defendant Officer Tom Hopp ("Hopp"), , a Nauvoo police officer, arrived and remained with the car for the towing truck to arrive. While Officer Hopp was waiting, Plaintiffs arrived and told Officer Hopp that they had come to retrieve the car. At this time, Jason Zenk ("Zenk"), a tow truck operator, arrived and would not allow Plaintiffs to take the car without paying the towing fee in cash. An argument ensued, and the Cotes informed Zenk and Hopp that they would be filing a civil suit over the dispute.
About a week later, in early July 2007, arrest warrants issued, charging the Cotes with obstructing a peace officer during the towing incident of June 23, 2007. The factual allegations against Mr. Cote stated the Mr. Cote took the car's ignition key and turned the wheels of the car, preventing the car from being towed. It remains unclear what the factual basis was for the arrest warrant against Mrs. Cote. On July 7, 2007, Defendant Officers Sarah Strope (formerly known as Sarah Stuecker and Sarah Houston) and Dan Leezer arrived at Plaintiffs' home, allegedly broke down the front door, and arrested the Cotes. Defendant Leezer also allegedly injured Mr. Cote while executing the arrest. In preparation for trial, State's Attorney James Drozdz, Assistant State's Attorney Hunter, and Defendant Officer Hopp allegedly edited information obtained in discovery in order to build a case against the Cotes. Plaintiffs were ultimately acquitted in a jury trial on July 15, 2009.
After filing their Complaint on February 17, 2009, Plaintiffs have since filed several Amended Complaints [#6, 22, 28], the most recent of which was filed on November 13, 2009. On April 1, 2010, this Court adopted the Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore, dismissing Plaintiffs' following claims: (1) Fourth Amendment claim by Mrs. Cote against Defendant Strope other than for breaking a door; (2) claims against Defendant Faulkner; (3) claims against the City of Nauvoo for failure to train; (4) conspiracy to commit false arrest; (5) claims under the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute and the federal eavesdropping provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2511; (6) claims under the American Disabilities Act; (7) federal claim for malicious prosecution; (8) federal claim for blocking access to the court; and (9) state law claims for false imprisonment, false arrest, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to train/supervise employees.
As of April 1, 2010, Plaintiffs retained the following claims: (1) Fourth Amendment claim by Mr. Cote against Defendant Leezer based on excessive force incident to arrest; (2) Fourth Amendment claim by both Plaintiffs against Defendant Strope for damage to their door incident to arrest; (3) Fourth Amendment claims by both Plaintiffs against Defendants Hopp and Drozdz for false arrest; (4) state law battery claim by Mr. Cote against Defendant Leezer; and (5) state law malicious prosecution claim by both Plaintiffs against Defendants Hopp, Drodz, and Hunter. Defendants Drozdz and Hunter have since settled with Plaintiffs.
On August 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [#103], which this Court granted on August 22, 2011. The proposed Amended Complaint, however, contained several already dismissed parties and claims. The Court, therefore, entered a text order on the same day, refusing to file the proposed Amended Complaint and ordering Plaintiffs to file a revised Amended Complaint, deleting all previously dismissed claims and parties. Defendants Hopp, Houston, and Leezer filed two separate Motions to Reconsider [#109, 110]. Before Plaintiffs were notified of this Court's Order requiring them to file a revised Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs also filed a Supplemental Motion for Leave to File [#113].
On August 31, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the revised Amended Complaint, which still contains previously dismissed claims and previously terminated parties. Plaintiffs also allege new causes of action against a new party as well as new causes of action against remaining parties. Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Order to Revive Plaintiffs' Motion for ...