September 21, 2016
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois No. 15-cv-1051 - James E. Shadid, Chief
Flaum, Kanne, and Williams, Circuit Judges.
Eric Tapley, along with William Hosea and Clifford Pugh,
request that we review the district court's decisions in
two different cases, one from 2012 (numbered 12-cv-1339) and
the other from 2015 (numbered 15-cv-1051). Yet they failed to
provide the record from the 2012 case on appeal. For that
reason, we dismiss the appeal of that case. We address the
merits of the 2015 case only-and we affirm.
record before us leaves much to the imagination. Although
Tapley asks us to review two cases, we have the record for
only one of them. To outline the history of these two cases,
we rely on the procedural facts provided in the
parties' briefs. We assume the truth of these facts for
that limited purpose. But that's as far as we'll go.
the required record, we are unable to address the
material facts of the 2012 case. We do have the
record from the 2015 case, and thus will discuss the facts
necessary to decide the merits of that appeal.
all began with the 2012 case. There, plaintiffs Tapley,
Hosea, and Pugh sued the City of Bloomington and Officers
Andrew Chambers, Jeff Engle, Michael Gray, John Heinlein,
Sara Mayer, Scott Sikora, James Smith, and Brice Stanfield.
The plaintiffs brought Fourth Amendment, equal-protection,
and Monell claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In
addition, Tapley brought a malicious-prosecution claim under
Illinois law. Ta-pley's claims arose from several
incidents occurring between 2011 and 2012. Hosea's and
Pugh's claims involved a single incident occurring on May
24, 2011. The incidents that gave rise to Tapley's claims
are unrelated to the incident that brought about Hosea's
and Pugh's claims.
defendants moved for summary judgment on all of these claims.
The district court granted that motion in part, dismissing
every claim except for Tapley's illegal-seizure claims
arising from two traffic stops: one occurring in May 2011 and
the other on September 15, 2011. Tapley voluntarily dismissed
those two claims, causing the district court to terminate the
case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The
plaintiffs then appealed to this court.
Tapley voluntarily dismissed his surviving claims without
prejudice, we questioned whether we had appellate
jurisdiction. Indeed, a dismissal without prejudice typically
does not result in a final and appealable order because the
plaintiff is free to refile his claim. Larkin v.
Galloway, 266 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 2001). We invited
the plaintiffs to brief the jurisdictional issue. They
instead dismissed their appeal on December 9, 2014.
then filed the 2015 case against Officers Chambers, Heinlein,
Sikora, Stanfield, and Mayer. There, Tapley reasserted his
illegal-seizure claim arising from the September 15, 2011
incident-one of the claims that he voluntarily dismissed in
the 2012 case. He did not refile his other voluntarily
dismissed claim from the 2012 case.
again, the defendants moved for summary judgment. This time
around, the district court granted their motion and dismissed
Tapley's claim. Tapley timely appealed that judgment.
Factual Background for the 2015 Case
events giving rise to Tapley's claim in the 2015 case
occurred on September 15, 2011. The Bloomington Police
Department's Street Crimes Unit was surveilling for
loud-music violations near the intersection of Clinton and
Locust streets. Officer Sikora was parked to the south of
that intersection when he observed Tapley driving northbound
in a red GMC truck. Sikora radioed his fellow officers to
inform them that Tapley was playing loud music and to inquire
whether anyone wanted to initiate a stop. Officer Stanfield
replied that he would try to make the stop. At that time,
Stanfield was parked at the Clinton-Locust intersection,
across the street from a Price Rite store.
turned into the Price Rite parking lot, and Stanfield
followed him. Tapley went into the store for a brief time
before returning to his truck. Stanfield testified that he
heard Ta-pley's music emanating from the truck as Tapley
was preparing to drive away. The parties agree that
Tapley's music was loud, ...