United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge.
On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff Tarnche Hull filed the present three-count First Amended Complaint against Defendants City of Chicago and Chicago Police Officers Robert Brown, Armando Garza, and Valery Roytman alleging violations of his constitutional rights, as well as a state law claim of false imprisonment pursuant to the Court's supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a). Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismisses this lawsuit in its entirety.
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 July 9, 2012, a Calumet City, Illinois police officer arrested Plaintiff Tarnche Hull's ("Hull") brother Latoine E. Hull. (R. 50, Pl.'s Rule 56.1 Add'l Facts ¶ 1.) The officer then signed a misdemeanor criminal complaint for obstruction of a police officer against Latoine E. Hull. ( Id. ) Booking information related to Latoine E. Hull, including a Social Security number and the date of birth, was entered into the Cook County Apprehension Book System ("CABS"). ( Id. ¶ 2.) On September 11, 2012, Latoine E. Hull did not appear in court and a judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County issued a warrant for Latoine E. Hull's arrest. ( Id. ¶ 3.)
On October 23, 2012, Defendant Officers Brown and Garza were assigned to beat number 652 in Chicago's Sixth District and were working the 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift. (R. 37, Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. Facts. ¶ 6.) That evening, Officers Brown and Garza were on routine patrol near 7600 South May Street. ( Id. ¶ 7.) At or around 7:15 p.m., Officers Brown and Garza saw a vehicle that they believed was parked too close to a fire hydrant at 7600 South May Street. ( Id. ¶ 8.) Officers Brown and Garza approached the vehicle and saw two men seated in it. ( Id. ¶ 9.) Specifically, Hull was seated in the front passenger seat and his twin brother, Antoine Hull ("Antoine"), was seated in the driver's seat. ( Id.; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 40.) Officer Brown drove up to the driver's side of the vehicle and asked Antoine if he had a license. ( Id. ¶ 10.) Antoine responded yes, reached into his pocket, pulled out a state ID, and handed it to Officer Brown. ( Id. ) When Antoine handed Officer Brown a state ID instead of a driver's license, Officer Brown pointed out that it was not a driver's license and stepped out of the squad car. ( Id. ¶ 11.) The officers then searched Antoine and Hull. ( Id. )
During the search, the officers found, among other things, Hull's state-issued ID that stated his name as "Tarnche B. Hull." ( Id. ¶ 12.) Thereafter, Officer Brown asked a dispatcher from the City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communication ("OEMC") to conduct a name check on both state ID numbers. ( Id. ¶ 13.) After conducting a name check, the dispatcher informed Officer Brown that there was an arrest warrant for the name Latoine E. Hull. ( Id. ¶ 14.) The arrest warrant information that Defendant Officers obtained included Latoine E. Hull's date of birth and Social Security number and stated a warning that the officers should not search, detain, or arrest the target based on the report alone. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 14.) At that time, Officers Brown and Garza did not arrest Hull, but kept Hull's state ID in their possession. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 15.) Defendant Officers, however, arrested Antoine, but released him an hour later at the Sixth District police station. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 7.)
When Officers Brown and Garza returned to the Sixth District police station, they conducted further investigation into "Tarnche B. Hull." (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 16.) As part of their investigation, Officer Brown looked up Hull's criminal history report and saw that Hull had previously used the alias "Latoine E. Hull." ( Id. ¶ 17.) Due to Hull's prior use of the alias "Latoine E. Hull, " Officer Brown believed that Hull was the target of the arrest warrant and that Tarnche Hull and Latoine Hull were the same person. ( Id. ¶ 18.)
Later that evening, Hull realized that Defendant Officers had not returned his state ID and at approximately 10 p.m., he went to the Sixth District police station to get his ID. ( Id. ¶ 19; Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 8.) At the station, Hull approached the front desk and asked for Officer Brown. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 20.) When Officers Brown and Garza appeared at the front desk approximately thirty minutes later, Hull identified himself and asked Officer Brown for his ID, after which the officers noticed that Hull matched the person in the photograph on the state ID that they had from the traffic stop. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Hull then told the officers that there was no warrant for his arrest and Hull's girlfriend provided the officers with Hull's Social Security number. (Pl.'s Stmt. Facts ¶ 9.) Officer Brown nevertheless took Hull into custody at approximately 11:50 p.m. on October 23, 2012. (Defs.' Stmt. Facts ¶ 22.)
After taking Hull into custody, Officers Garza and Brown conducted further research by using the Law Enforcement Database System ("LEADS") to investigate the personal identifying information associated with the arrest warrant. ( Id. ¶ 26.) A LEADS response revealed that the arrest warrant target used the aliases Tarnche Hull and Tarnche B. Hull. ( Id. ¶ 28.) The officers' investigation further revealed that the arrest warrant target's FBI number - which is based on fingerprints - matched the FBI number on Hull's criminal history report. ( ...