United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
W. DARRAH United States District Court Judge
Jacqueline Price filed a Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”) against the City of Chicago and two
police officers, Germaine Wrencher and Kazan Wilson
(“Defendant Officers”). The SAC alleges eleven
counts of constitutional violations and violations of state
law. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that was
granted on all counts. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment  pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59. Plaintiff's Motion  is denied.
January 29, 2013, Defendant Officers were dispatched to a
Dunkin' Donuts in response to a 911 call, which stated
that a female was swinging a belt at people as they walked
past her. The officers received a description of the suspect,
who was an African-American female wearing a purple shirt and
blue jeans. The officers saw Plaintiff, who matched the
description and was talking to herself and swinging a leather
belt. The officers approached and asked Plaintiff to stop.
Plaintiff refused, told the officers to get away from her,
and walked away from the officers.
officers attempted to take Plaintiff into custody. Wrencher
grabbed Plaintiff's right wrist with one of his hands and
used his other hand to hold Plaintiff's elbow. Plaintiff
lost her balance, and her body went forward with her right
arm behind her. There was a noise like a popping noise or a
loud crack, and Plaintiff's arm went limp. Wilson called
an ambulance, which arrived within minutes and took Plaintiff
to Northwestern Memorial Hospital, where Plaintiff was taken
into the emergency room.
hospital, Wilson requested an evaluation of Plaintiff's
mental health. Plaintiff did not receive a psychological
evaluation from any doctor at Northwestern. Plaintiff was
diagnosed with a closed greenstick fracture of her right
humerus. After she was treated, Plaintiff was released from
Northwestern with her belongings. On January 30, 2013,
Plaintiff was admitted to Mercy Hospital for psychological
reasons. Defendants were not involved in Plaintiff's
admission to Mercy Hospital.
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted.
prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to amend judgment, a party
must clearly establish (1) that the court committed a
manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered
evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati
Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 955 (7th Cir.
2013). A manifest error of law is the “wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize
controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life
Ins., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
argues that there is a genuine dispute over whether Wrencher
used excessive force when taking Plaintiff into custody.
Plaintiff contends that a trier of fact would have to believe
that Wrencher grabbed her arm but did not apply force
or believe that Wrencher used sufficient force to
cause Plaintiff's greenstick fracture. For this
contention, Plaintiff relies on her definition of a
greenstick fracture, which she found on a
website. However, as stated in the ruling on
summary judgment, facts that rely on inadmissible hearsay are
disregarded for the purposes of summary judgment.
Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738, 742 (7th
Cir. 1997). Further, Plaintiff's greenstick fracture is
not necessarily incompatible with Wrencher's version of
events. Plaintiff's hearsay definition of greenstick
fracture did not create a genuine issue of material fact.
See Stephens v. Erickson, 569 F.3d 779, 786 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“[t]he nonmoving party must point to
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
reply brief, Plaintiff argues, for the first time, that
finding the use of an “arm bar” technique
objectively reasonable was error. As an initial matter,
arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are
waived. APS Sports Collectibles, Inc. v. Sports Time,
Inc., 299 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2002). The “arm
bar” and “wrist lock” techniques are
“minimally forceful techniques designed to subdue
non-compliant subjects and prevent escalation.”
Fitzgerald v. Santoro, 707 F.3d 725, 734 (7th Cir.
2013). Plaintiff refused to speak to the officers while
speaking to herself in gibberish and swinging a belt. The
officers had also been informed that Plaintiff was
frightening customers in a Dunkin' Donuts by swinging her
belt around. Wrencher was reasonable in using a minimally
forceful technique to subdue a non-compliant subject.
did not provide facts such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict in her favor. Summary judgment is
inappropriate when “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving