United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendants City of Mt.
Vernon, Illinois and Mt. Vernon Police Department's
Motion (Doc. 25) for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff filed a timely
response (Doc. 32).
Plaintiff was on conditional release from a state felony
conviction when he was allegedly involved in an
incident on October 12, 2013. The alleged incident resulted
in a petition to revoke the conditional release. The offenses
listed on the Petition to Revoke (“PTR”) are
aggravated discharge of a firearm on October 12, 2013;
unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon on October 12,
2013; and aggravated discharge of a firearm on October 31,
2013. The Petition to Revoke was dated February
Warrant of Arrest, also dated February 18th, 2014,
lists the following offenses: PTR - Aggravated Battery; PTR -
Unlawful Delivery of Controlled Substance; and PTR - Unlawful
Delivery of Controlled Substance. The plaintiff was arrested
on February 18th, 2014 and was incarcerated from
February 18 until February 24 when he posted $5, 000.00 on a
$50, 000.00 bond.
plaintiff was leaving the jail, he made it as far as the
parking lot when he was arrested again. This time the arrest
was based on the charges underlining the PTR. It is noted
that charging instrument for the underlining charges was
filed on February 26, 2014, in Case No. 14-CF-63, In the
Circuit Court of the Second judicial Circuit, Jefferson
County, Illinois. According to the complaint, the plaintiff
spent approximately six weeks incarcerated before posting an
additional bond. All charges were dismissed “without
explanation” on March 3, 2015.
complaint alleges a federal violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's
safety in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and three
state charges - abuse of process, false imprisonment, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
move for summary judgment on all counts arguing that,
“the defendants cannot be held vicariously liable on
the civil rights claims, the state law claims are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations and all documentation
clearly shows that Webster was validly arrested on two
separate occasions for two separate charges.” (Doc. 25,
judgment must be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels
Int'l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir.
2000). The reviewing court must construe the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of that party. See
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986); Chelios v. Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th
Cir. 2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
nonmoving party may not simply rest upon the allegations
contained in the pleadings but must present specific facts to
show that a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-26; Anderson, 477
U.S. at 256-57; Modrowski, 712 F.3d at 1168. A
genuine issue of material fact is not demonstrated by the
mere existence of “some alleged factual dispute between
the parties, ” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, or
by “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,
” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue
of material fact exists only if “a fair-minded jury
could return a verdict for the [nonmoving party] on the
evidence presented.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at
Plaintiff's entire response to the defendants' motion
for summary judgment is as follows:
As I recall, The original arrest was for new charge. As soon
as I posted bail, They re-arrested me on PRT based on same
charges. The State's Attorney was aware that I was on
conditional Discharge and could have filed a PRT at anytime,
But waited until after I post ...