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.

Webster v. City of Mt. Vernon

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 5, 2016

CALVIN WEBSTER, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF MT. VERNON, ILLINOIS and MT. VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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[1] (Doc. 32).

         I. Background.

         The Plaintiff was on conditional release from a state felony conviction[2] 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 18th, 2014.

         The 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[3] and was incarcerated from February 18 until February 24 when he posted $5, 000.00 on a $50, 000.00 bond.

         As the 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.

         Plaintiff's 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.

         Defendants' 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, pg 2).

         II. Standard.

         Summary 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.

         The 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 252.

         III. Analysis.

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 ...

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.