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.

Whitted v. Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart

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

June 23, 2014

MICHAEL WHITTED, Plaintiff,
v.
COOK COUNTY SHERIFF THOMAS DART, and the COUNTY OF COOK, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge.

On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff Michael Whitted filed a three-count Fourth Amended Complaint alleging a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim (Count II) and a claim pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (Count III), against Defendants Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart and the County of Cook.[1] Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' summary judgment motion.

BACKGROUND

I. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 56.1

Local Rule 56.1 "is designed, in part, to aid the district court, which does not have the advantage of the parties' familiarity with the record and often cannot afford to spend the time combing the record to locate the relevant information, ' in determining whether a trial is necessary." Delapaz v. Richardson, 634 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Local Rule 56.1(a)(3) requires the moving party to provide "a statement of material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue." Cracco v. Vitran Exp., Inc., 559 F.3d 625, 632 (7th Cir. 2009). "The opposing party is required to file a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting materials relied upon." Id. (citing N.D.Ill. R. 56.1(b)(3)(B)). Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) requires the nonmoving party to present a separate statement of additional facts that requires the denial of summary judgment. See Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527 F.3d 635, 643-44 (7th Cir. 2008).

In general, the purpose of Local Rule 56.1 statements and responses is to identify the relevant admissible evidence supporting the material facts, not to make factual or legal arguments. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 2006) ("statement of material facts did [] not comply with Rule 56.1 as it failed to adequately cite the record and was filled with irrelevant information, legal arguments, and conjecture"). "When a responding party's statement fails to dispute the facts set forth in the moving party's statement in the manner dictated by the rule, those facts are deemed admitted for purposes of the motion." Cracco, 559 F.3d at 632; see also Frey Corp. v. City of Peoria, Ill., 735 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2013).

In sum, "[f]or litigants appearing in the Northern District of Illinois, the Rule 56.1 statement is a critical, and required, component of a litigant's response to a motion for summary judgment. The purpose of the local rule is to make the summary judgment process less burdensome on district courts, by requiring the parties to nail down the relevant facts and the way they propose to support them." Sojka v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 686 F.3d 394, 398 (7th Cir. 2012). With these standards in mind, the Court turns to the relevant facts of this case.

II. Relevant Facts

On May 20, 2008, a Circuit Court of Cook County judge arraigned Plaintiff as an adult with armed robbery in the Circuit Court of Cook County Sixth Municipal District Courthouse located in Markham, Illinois. (R. 95, Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts ¶ 4.) During the May 20, 2008 court appearance, a record was made in open court that Plaintiff was 16-years-old. ( Id. ¶ 6.) Also during the May 20, 2008 court appearance, the Circuit Court judge held a bond hearing and set bond in Plaintiff's case. ( Id. ¶ 7.) The Clerk of the Court then filled out a mittimus that did not indicate which detention facility (adult or juvenile) the Sheriff's officers were to transport Plaintiff.[2] (R. 102, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Stmt. Add'l Facts ¶ 5, Ex. D.)

After his court appearance, a Sheriff's deputy took Plaintiff into a holding area with his co-defendant, who was an adult, where they remained for approximately 30 minutes. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 9; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 4.) Thereafter, the Sheriff's deputy took Plaintiff to another holding cell with approximately seven to eight adult arrestees. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 10; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 7, 9.) After four hours in the second holding cell, two Sheriff's officers transported Plaintiff and the other arrestees to the Cook County Department of Corrections ("CCDOC"). (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 11; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 10.) Plaintiff asked both transport officers when they were going to take him to the Juvenile Temporary Detention Center ("JTDC"). (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 12.) The officers told him that they would first transport him to the CCDOC with the adult arrestees and then transport him to the JTDC. ( Id.; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 11.)

Upon arriving at the CCDOC, the arrestees - including Plaintiff - exited the bus, after which Sheriff's officers strip-searched them. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 14; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 12; R. 95-2, Ex. B, Pl.'s Dep., at 26-28.) The officers then placed Plaintiff in a holding cell with adult arrestees. ( Id. ) During his initial intake, Plaintiff spoke to an unnamed Sheriff's officer and told the officer that he was 16-years-old and that he was not supposed to be at the CCDOC. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 15, 16; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶¶ 1, 13; Pl.'s Dep., at 31-32.) The officer then accused Plaintiff of lying about his age. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 14.) After completing the initial intake, Plaintiff talked to a mental health professional as part of the overall intake process. ( Id. ¶ 17.) At that time, Plaintiff told the mental health care provider the date of his birth. ( Id. )

After completing the intake procedure, a Sheriff's deputy transferred Plaintiff to Division 11 of the CCDOC. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 18.) Plaintiff was housed in cell 23 with an adult detainee. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 19.) Once in Division 11, Plaintiff told a Sheriff's deputy that he was in the wrong place because of his age. ( Id. ¶ 20; Pl.'s Dep., at 57-58.) During his transport, intake, and detention at the CCDOC, Plaintiff told at least five Sheriff's office employees that he was a minor. (Defs.' Stmt. Fact ¶ 38.)

At some point on the evening of May 21, 2008, Plaintiff called a friend and asked him to notify his mother that he was in adult detention and that his mother needed to bring proof of his age so he could be transferred to the JTDC. ( Id. ¶¶ 23, 24; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 21.) Plaintiff then went to the shower area at which time two adult detainees hit him on the back of the head, threw a blanket over his head, and pushed him to the ground. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 23.) While naked and lying face down on the shower floor, the adult detainees held Plaintiff with a choke-hold and anally raped him. ( Id. ¶ 25; Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 26.) Immediately after the rape, the adult detainees told Plaintiff that they would kill him if he told anyone. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 26.)

The next morning on May 22, 2008, a correctional officer told Plaintiff to pack up because he was leaving Division 11. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 29.) Sheriff's officers then transported Plaintiff to Division 9 and placed him in protective custody. ( Id. ¶ 31; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 27.) Plaintiff remained in Division 9 until the afternoon of May ...


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.