CHARLES P. KOCORAS, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendants Officer Richard Fiorito ("Officer Fiorito") and the City of Chicago (the "City") (collectively "Defendants") to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Paul Myvett ("Myvett") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted.
The following well-pleaded allegations are derived from Myvett's complaint, and the Court accepts them as true for the purposes of the instant motion. At all times relevant, Officer Fiorito was employed as a patrol officer with the Chicago Police Department. He worked the midnight shift and was paid overtime for any appearance in court, which would invariably occur after the conclusion of his shift. To collect more overtime pay, Officer Fiorito concocted a scheme in which he arrested innocent motorists for driving under the influence ("D.U.I."). Officer Fiorito falsified reports about these motorists and refused to permit them to submit to breathalyzer examinations.
On June 22, 2009, Officer Fiorito ordered Myvett to drive away from a party, after which Officer Fiorito pulled Myvett over and arrested him for D.U.I. Officer Fiorito did not allow Myvett to submit to a breathalyzer test. Myvett's prosecution lasted nearly three years until May 24, 2012, when Myvett's case was disposed of in a manner indicative of innocence.
The City suspected Officer Fiorito of misconduct related to his D.U.I. arrests. Officer Fiorito's supervisor commissioned an Internal Affairs investigation into the alleged misconduct in or about January 2008, but the investigation was either not conducted, or the results were concealed and never released to the public. The Chicago Police Department has a "code of silence, " under which officers do not report the misconduct of fellow officers. The City failed to train and supervise Officer Fiorito properly in accordance with its normal policy, thus allowing him to perpetrate misconduct against Myvett and others.
On May 24, 2013, Myvett filed a three-count complaint against Defendants alleging: an infringement upon his due process rights in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") (Count I); a claim against the City pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (Count II); and a claim for malicious prosecution under Illinois law (Count III). Myvett's complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages against Officer Fiorito, compensatory damages against the City, and attorneys' fees. On August 23, 2013, Defendants brought a motion to dismiss Myvett's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and not the merits of the case. McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 694 F.3d 873, 878 (7th Cir. 2012). The allegations in a complaint must set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A plaintiff need not provide detailed factual allegations but must provide enough factual support to raise his right to relief above a speculative level. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A claim must be facially plausible, meaning that the pleadings must allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the purported misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, " are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 678.
I. Section 1983 Claims
A. Due Process
Defendants argue that: (i) there is no viable due process claim against Officer Fiorito; (ii) there is, as a result, no viable Monell claim against the City; and (iii) this Court should decline to exercise supplementary jurisdiction over Myvett's state law claim for malicious prosecution and dismiss it without prejudice so that it may be filed in state court. Myvett contends that Officer Fiorito violated his due process rights by: (i) failing to disclose his scheme to garner more overtime pay; and (ii) failing to disclose dashboard camera footage of Myvett's arrest. These actions, Myvett avers, violated the rule articulated in Brady v. Maryland, 383 U.S. 83 (1963) because Myvett would not have been prosecuted had this evidence been disclosed. Defendants contend that Myvett's due process claims constitute: (i) a false arrest ...