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.

Britt v. Anderson

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

February 28, 2014

LEMIA BRITT, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER JEROME L. ANDERSON, Star No. 3712, a Chicago Police Officer, CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Defendants

Page 967

For Lemia Britt, Plaintiff: Julie B. Aimen, Law Office of Julie B. Aimen, Chicago, IL; Julie Owen Herrera, Law Office of Julie O. Herrera, Chicago, IL.

For Jerome L Anderson, City Of Chicago, Defendants: Kathryn M. Doi, LEAD ATTORNEY, City of Chicago (30 N LS), Chicago, IL; Lindsey M. Vanorny, City of Chicago Law Department, Federal Civil Rights Litigation, Chicago, IL.

OPINION

Page 968

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, United States District Judge.

On September 19, 2013, plaintiff Lemia Britt (" Britt" ) filed a six-count complaint (" Complaint" ) (Dkt. No. 1 (" Compl." )) against defendant Jerome Anderson (" Anderson" ), an officer with the Chicago Police Department, alleging Anderson violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by unlawfully seizing photos from Britt's phone, (Compl. ¶ ¶ 20-23), and discriminating against Britt on the basis of her sex, (Compl. ¶ ¶ 24-29). Britt also brings supplemental state law claims against Anderson and the City of Chicago (" City" ) (collectively, " Defendants" ) for conversion (Count III), trespass to chattels (Count IV), and invasion of privacy (Count V). (Compl. ¶ ¶ 30-46.) Finally, Britt brings a claim for indemnification (Count VI) against the City under 745 ILCS 10/9-102, which directs the City to pay any judgment for compensatory damages for which Anderson, acting in the scope of his employment, is found liable. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 47-50.) Defendants have moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 12 (" Defs.' Mot." )) the federal claims alleged against Anderson pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and have requested that the court decline supplemental jurisdiction over Britt's remaining state law claims. For the reasons explained below, that motion is granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts alleged in Britt's Complaint are concise. On June 25, 2013, Anderson arrested Britt and took her into custody at the Second District Chicago Police Station. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 11-12.) While Britt was in custody, and without her knowledge or consent, Anderson: (1) accessed Britt's purse and cell phone; (2) discovered " private and sensitive" photos stored on Britt's cell phone; and (3) forwarded the private and sensitive photos to his personal cell phone.[1] (Compl. ¶ ¶ 13, 15.)

Page 969

In her response to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 16 (" Pl.'s Resp." )), Britt alleges a number of additional " material facts that [she] believes discovery will show," including the reason for her arrest, Anderson's efforts to circumvent a " locked app" on Britt's cell phone, and that the photos he seized were sexual in nature. (Pl.'s Resp. at 2.) At the 12(b)(6) stage, however, the court must confine its analysis to the allegations made within the four corners of Britt's Complaint; the court cannot consider additional facts alleged outside of the pleadings. Wilson v. Price, 624 F.3d 389, 391 n.1 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir. 2006)).

LEGAL STANDARD

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need contain only " a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The complaint must " give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). Although " detailed factual allegations" are not required, " labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. The complaint must " include sufficient facts 'to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Cole v. Milwaukee Area Tech. Coll. Dist., 634 F.3d 901, 903 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir. 2009)). " A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). In ...


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.