Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Timothy C. Odom v. Kate Watson

September 27, 2011


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael P. McCUSKEY Chief U.S. District Judge

E-FILED Tuesday, 27 September, 2011 04:34:04 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD


This case is before the court for ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment (#27) filed by Defendants, Villa Grove Police Chief Dennis Gire, Officer Michael Bradley and the Villa Grove Board, and the Motion for Summary Judgment (#28) filed by Defendant Kate Watson. Following this court's careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, both Motions for Summary Judgment (#27, #28) are GRANTED.


On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff, Timothy C. Odom, filed a pro se Complaint (#1) against Kate Watson, Dennis Gire, Judge Chris Freese, Michael Bradley and the Villa Grove Board. Plaintiff stated that his lawsuit was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that his civil rights were violated when he was arrested on August 23, 2010. Plaintiff alleged that the arrest was based upon a "stalking no contact order" signed by Judge Freese. Plaintiff alleged that the charge was brought by Assistant State's Attorney Watson and that the charge was signed by Chief Gire under oath. Plaintiff also alleged that Officer Bradley violated his rights when Bradley gave both of Plaintiff's children in his custody to his girlfriend. Plaintiff attached copies of documents to his Complaint. These documents included a copy of the order signed by Judge Freese on June 8, 2010, and a copy of an Information filed August 23, 2010, which charged Plaintiff with the offense of unlawful violation of a stalking no contact order, in violation of 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 21/125. Plaintiff also attached a copy of an arrest warrant issued on August 23, 2010, and a copy of the birth certificate for each of his two children.

On November 10, 2010, Defendant Watson filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings (#14). Watson stated that criminal proceedings remained pending against Plaintiff and asked that the case be stayed until the criminal prosecution was resolved. On December 23, 2010, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal granted the Motion to Stay and stayed the proceedings pending further order of the court. On July 26, 2011, a telephone status conference was held. The parties discussed the status of the state criminal proceedings and Judge Bernthal lifted the stay.

On August 15, 2011, Judge Bernthal entered a Report and Recommendation (#26). Judge Bernthal recommended granting the Motion to Dismiss (#19) filed by Defendant Freese based upon judicial immunity. On September 6, 2011, this court entered an Order (#35) which accepted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Freese with prejudice. Defendant Freese was terminated as a party to this case.

On August 15, 2011, a Motion for Summary Judgment (#27) was filed by Defendants Gire, Bradley and the Villa Grove Board. On August 16, 2011, Defendant Watson filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (#28). Defendant Watson also filed a Memorandum (#29) with an attached Affidavit in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment. The evidence presented by Defendants showed that Plaintiff was charged by information with unlawful violation of a stalking no contact order in Douglas County Case No. 2010-CM-95. On June 20, 2011, judgment was entered in favor of the People and against Plaintiff in the criminal case. Judgment was entered against Plaintiff in the amount of $425.00 and the case was closed. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff's claims are precluded by the doctrine set out in Heck v Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Defendant Watson also argues that she is entitled to prosecutorial immunity.

On August 16, 2011, two Notices (#30, #31) were sent to Plaintiff.*fn1 The Notices stated:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a case-dispositive motion (such as a motion for summary judgment or motion for judgment on the pleadings) has been filed. See Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.56; Fed.R.Civ.P12(c),. Please be advised that you have twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing to respond to the motion. If you do not respond, the motion, if appropriate, will be granted and the case will be terminated without a trial. See, generally, Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F. 2d 100 (7th Cir. 1982); Timms v. Frank, 953 F. 2d 281 (7th Cir. 1992). Under the court's local rules, a motion is deemed to be uncontested if no opposing brief is filed. See L.R. CDIL 7.1(D)(2).

When a motion for summary judgment is made and properly supported, you must not simply rely upon the allegations made in your complaint. Rather, you must respond by affidavit(s) or as otherwise provided in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, a copy of which is attached. Your response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do not submit affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the defendants' assertions, the defendants' statement of facts will be accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P 56(e) and L.R. 7.1(attached).

On September 13, 2011, Plaintiff filed his pro se Response (#36) to the Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff did not dispute any of the facts listed by Defendants and did not directly respond to the arguments made by Defendants. Instead, Plaintiff listed various legal propositions, none of which appear to have any application to this case. Plaintiff did attach some documents to his Response. These documents do not contradict the facts listed by Defendants.

Defendants filed Replies (#38, #39) to Plaintiff's Response and pointed out that Plaintiff did not dispute ...

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.