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.

Jakupovic v. Curran

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

August 11, 2016

AMIR JAKUPOVIC, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK C. CURRAN, JR., TERRENCE BARRETT, CHRISTINE HECKER, and JOSEPH FUSZ, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Sharon Johnson Coleman United States District Judge

         Plaintiff, Amir Jakupovic, filed a four-count Complaint against Mark C. Curran, Jr., Terrence Barrett, Christine Hecker, and Joseph Fusz, individually, for their alleged roles in his pretrial detention in Lake County Jail. Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim [14]. For the reasons stated below, this Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss.

         Background

         Plaintiff, Amir Jakupovic, is a Cook County, Illinois, resident who claims he was wrongfully detained in Lake County Jail from November 17, 2015, until November 23, 2015. (Dkt. 1, Compl. at ¶ 5). Defendant, Mark C. Curran, was the Lake County Sheriff and director of the Lake County Jail. (Id. at ¶ 6). Defendant, Terrence Barrett, was the Lake County Pretrial Unit Manager at the Lake County Jail responsible for pretrial detainees and electronic monitoring. (Id. at ¶ 7). Defendant, Christine Hecker, was the Lake County Principal Probation Officer. (Id. at ¶ 8). Defendant, Joseph Fusz, was a Lake County Assistant State’s Attorney. (Id. at ¶ 9). The Complaint alleges that each defendant had the power and authority to transfer Jakupovic to Cook County for electronic monitoring.

         In September 2015, Jakupovic’s girlfriend filed a domestic battery report in the Circuit Court of Cook County and her mother filed a telephone harassment report in the Nineteenth Circuit Court of Lake County. (Id. at ¶ 10). On September 25, 2015, Jakupovic was charged with telephone harassment in the Nineteenth Circuit Court of Lake County. (Id. at ¶ 11). Jakupovic’s brother posted bond on his behalf and Jakupovic was released. (Id. at ¶ 12). On October 15, 2015, the domestic battery charge was dismissed by the Circuit Court of Cook County with a voluntary one-year Plenary Order of Protection. (Id. at ¶ 13).

         On October 22, 2015, Jakupovic appeared for arraignment before the Honorable Raymond Collins of the Nineteenth Circuit Court of Lake County and entered a plea of not guilty on the telephone harassment charge. (Id. at ¶ 14). Judge Collins ordered Jakupovic to undergo an Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (“ODARA”) pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/110-5(f) (amended). (Id.). On November 17, 2015, Jakupovic appeared before the Nineteenth Circuit Court of Lake County for pre-trial. (Id. at ¶ 15). Assistant Lake County State’s Attorney, Joseph Fusz, requested the Court place Jakupovic on electronic surveillance. (Id.). Jakupovic’s counsel objected based on the plenary order and the fact that Jakupovic had not been in contact with the victim or her family. (Id.).

         Christine Hecker prepared the ODARA report, which indicated that Jakupovic was a Cook County resident and that, pursuant to “Diane’s Law, ” Jakupovic may be subject to GPS monitoring. (Id. at ¶ 17). At the next hearing on November 17, 2015, Hecker was not present, but both the Court and the ASA Fusz had an advance copy of the ODARA report. (Id. at ¶ 16). Judge Collins ordered Jakupovic to be taken into custody and placed on electronic surveillance, allegedly without argument from his counsel who was present. (Id. at ¶ 18). According to the Complaint, the Lake County Sheriff’s Department requires any pretrial detainee provide them with a Lake County address to begin electronic surveillance. (Id. at ¶ 19). If a pretrial detainee, like Jakupovic, does not have a Lake County address, he cannot be released. (Id.)

         On November 18, 2015, Jakupovic’s counsel filed an emergency motion because the electronic monitoring condition of Jakupovic’s bond could not be satisfied and he would then be held in Lake County Jail indefinitely. (Id. at ¶ 22). Judge Collins denied the emergency motion and refused to reconsider his order. (Id.). The Complaint alleges that Judge Collins found “Defendant’s inability to meet the conditions of his bond, one of which is his lack of a Lake County address for the purposes of electronic monitoring, is not sufficient grounds for reconsideration.” (Id.). According to the Complaint, all of the defendants were aware that under 730 ILCS 5/5-6-3(f) convicted defendants electronically monitored as a condition of probation or parole may be transferred to the county of their residence for purposes of electronic monitoring. (Id. at ¶ 23). Jakupovic alleges that Lake County was capable of transferring him to Cook County for electronic monitoring and refused. (Id. at ¶ 24). After six days in Lake County Jail, Jakupovic pled guilty to telephone harassment. (Id. at ¶ 26). He filed the Complaint now before the Court, asserting that the Lake County Sheriff, the Pretrial Unit Manager, the Principal Probation Officer, and ASA Fusz violated his constitutional rights by keeping him in Lake County jail instead of transferring him to Cook County for electronic monitoring.

         Legal Standard

         A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). When considering the motion, the Court accepts as true all well pleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor. AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). To survive dismissal, the complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a claim’s basis, but must also be facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A plaintiff may plead himself out of court by alleging facts that defeat the claim. Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2011).

         Discussion

         Defendants move to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failing to state a claim. Defendants argue that Count I must be dismissed because the Eighth Amendment does not apply to pretrial detainees, and Jakupovic has not stated a claim for deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. Defendants assert that Counts II and III should be dismissed because the allegations are conclusory and each defendant is entitled to immunity. Count IV for false imprisonment must fail because Jakupovic was detained pursuant to court order and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court’s review of Judge Collins’ order imposing pretrial bond conditions. This Court will address each Count in turn, though the crux of the claim is whether the defendants had the authority to transfer Jakupovic to Cook County for electronic monitoring.

         1. Count I - Eighth Amendment

         At the outset, Jakupovic cannot state a claim for an Eighth Amendment violation because he was a pretrial detainee. Although the same standard applies to determine whether a pretrial detainee has suffered a deprivation of his rights, the appropriate vehicle for asserting those rights is the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause. See Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 477 ...


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.