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.

Love v. City of Chicago

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

May 13, 2013

SHEIK L. LOVE EL, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, ET AL., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT M. DOW, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on two motions to dismiss [Doc. 15 in 12-cv-2725 and in Doc. 14 in 12-Cv-2730] filed by Defendant City of Chicago in these companion actions. Also before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff [Docs. 40, 48, and 49 in 12-cv-2725 and Docs. 32 and 33 in 12-Cv-2730]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant City of Chicago's motions to dismiss [Doc. 15 in 12-cv-2725 and in Doc. 14 in 12-Cv-2730] and denies all of Plaintiff's pending motions [Docs. 40, 48, and 49 in 12-cv-2725 and Docs. 32 and 33 in 12-Cv-2730].

I. Background[1]

A. Plaintiff's Prior Complaint in Case No. 10-cv-1047

On June 30, 2010, Plaintiffs Moorish National Republic: Federal Government Moorish Divine and National Movement of the World, the Moorish Science Temple of America, Sheikess Diana El, and Sheik Lyonel Love El filed a complaint in Case No. 10-cv-1047 against the City of Chicago and Mayor Daley alleging violations of their civil rights by Chicago Police Department officers as well as Mayor Daley in three separate incidents, including federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Monell policy claim, and numerous Illinois State law claims. Giving the complaint a generous reading, Plaintiffs' complaint alleged the following causes of action: false arrest pursuant to §1983 (Count I); false arrest under Illinois state law (Count II); malicious prosecution under Illinois state law (Count III); breach of contract under Illinois state law (Count IV); a § 1983 claim against Mayor Daley personally (Count V); a Monell policy claim against the City (Count VI); an indemnification claim against the City pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act (Count VII); a claim for respondeat superior against the City (Count VIII); a class action claim against the City (Count IX); injunctive relief (Count X); a duplicate malicious prosecution claim (Count XI); negligence (Count XII); and tortious interference (Count XIII).

In what Plaintiffs' complaint referred to as "Incident #1, " Plaintiff was stopped by Officer Angel Grasser on May 12, 2009. Plaintiff did not consent to a search, but "submitted [his] paperwork." He was cited for several traffic violations, including violations of 625 ILCS 5/12-603.1 (no seat belt), 625 ILCS 5/3-701-1 (no valid registration), 625 ILCS 5/6-101 (no driver's license), and 625 ILCS 5/3-707 (no insurance), arrested, searched, and his vehicle was impounded. He was transported to a "processing facility" and questioned about his identity. He was released five hours later. Lyonel alleges that some of his items (Moorish paperwork and "Oils") were missing. Lyonel was required to appear in state court to answer to the traffic violations on August 12, 2009, but failed to do so and a judgment on bond forfeiture was entered against him as to each traffic violation. See Certified Statement of Disposition for People of the State of Illinois or City of Chicago v. Lyonel Love El, Nos. TT067843, TT067844, TT067845 and TT067847, attached to Def. Resp. as Ex. A.

In what the prior complaint refers to as "Incident #3, " Lyonel again was stopped by Chicago Police Officers on January 31, 2010. He was threatened by the officers and told to put his car in "park" and open the door. When he did not do so, the officers broke the window and "snatch[ed] him up out of the vehicle, causing [him] injury." He then was forced to the ground, handcuffed, and taken into custody. The officers took his cell phone, wallet, keys, and religious pin and charm. The officers asked if he wished to go to the hospital, to which he replied "yes." He subsequently was transported to the hospital. Id. at § 42. Lyonel's car was impounded and in order to retrieve his car from the pound, he would have had to pay $1000, due to an alleged narcotics violation.

Lyonel was cited for several traffic violations, including: 625 ILCS 5.0/6-303-A (driving on a suspended license), 625 ILCS 5/3-707 (no insurance), MCC 9-16-050(B)(no turn signal) arrested, and released five hours later. See Certified Statement of Disposition for People of the State of Illinois or City of Chicago v. Lyonel Love El, Nos. TT474388, TT474389, TT474385, attached to Def. Resp. as Ex. B. His vehicle also was impounded. Id. Lyonel was required to appear in court to answer to the traffic violations on August 12, 2010, but failed to do so and a judgment on bond forfeiture was entered against him as to each traffic violation.

In his prior complaint, Plaintiff also alleged a Monell claim against the City of Chicago.

B. Final Judgment in Case No. 10-1047

On July 19, 2011, the Court granted the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint in Case No. 10-1047. [Case No. 10-1047, Doc. 152.] With respect to Plaintiff's federal claims of false arrest related to the incidents on May 12, 2009 and January 31, 2010, the Court made a merits-determination that there was probable cause for Plaintiff's two arrests. Additionally, the Court also reviewed Plaintiff's Monell claim and found, on the merits, that this federal claim failed as well. Thus, the Court dismissed with prejudice all of Plaintiff's federal claims in Case No. 10-1047. The Court declined to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state-law claims and thus dismissed those claims without prejudice. Plaintiff did not appeal.

C. Plaintiff's Newly-Filed Complaints in Case Nos. 12-cv-2725 and 12-Cv-2730

On March 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed two separate complaints in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Defendants removed both of these cases to this Court on April 13, 2012. (Case No. 12-cv-2725, Doc. 1; Case No. 12-Cv-2730, Doc. 1). Plaintiff's complaint in Case No. 12-cv-2725 alleges a Monell claim and a section 1983 false arrest claim, both of which are identical to the claims raised by Plaintiff-relating to his May 12, 2009 arrest-in his complaint in Case No. 10-1047; in fact, a comparison of the federal claims raised in the current case (12-cv-2725) and prior case (10-cv-1047) shows that the same allegations are made verbatim. Likewise, Plaintiff's complaint in Case No. 12-Cv-2730 alleges a Monell claim and a section 1983 false arrest claim that are identical to the claims raised by Plaintiff-relating to his January 31, 2010 arrest-in his complaint in Case No. 10-cv-1047; again, a comparison of the federal claims ...


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.