United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
JEROME J. CASIMIR a/k/a JEROME J. DUMAS and BETTY J. DUMAS, Plaintiffs,
CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. Gottschall United States District Judge
the court is defendants' motion to dismiss the pro
se plaintiffs' second amended complaint with
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the
following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied
received leave under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to proceed
without paying the filing fee, Jerome J. Casimir
(“Casimir”), who represents himself, commenced
this civil action by filing his complaint on April 29, 2015.
(Dkt. 1, 6.) Casimir moved for leave to amend his complaint
and add Betty J. Dumas (“Dumas”) as a plaintiff
before defendants responded to the original complaint. (Dkt.
16, 17.) The court granted his request. (Dkt. 22).
the original complaint, plaintiffs' first amended
complaint had four counts: Count One, § 1983 claim for
“malicious harassment”; Count Two, § 1983
claim for “due process”; Count Three, claim for
indemnity against the City of Chicago; and Count Four,
“state law claim for respondeat superior.”
Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court granted
that motion and dismissed the first amended complaint on
February 16, 2016. (Dkt. 32.) The court, however, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend Count One. (Id. at 1, 6.)
The court dismissed Count One for failure to comply with the
pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2):
Plaintiffs make a claim for “malicious
harassment” based on the false issuance of the ticket;
a secret investigation (not described); surrounding
plaintiffs' residence with police; forcing one of the
plaintiffs to move and ruining his credit and reputation, and
“remov[ing] government records like fire reports to
cover corruption and assist crime because people be [sic]
afraid on the street.” Apart, however, from the
detailed allegations about the baseless ticket, none of these
allegations are described, and the court is unable to fulfill
its function of making sure that the allegations are
plausible and that the allegations give the defendants
sufficient notice of what plaintiffs are complaining about.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains little in the way
of facts and lots in the way of useless legal boilerplate and
legal conclusions. Plaintiffs also fail to provide any facts
justifying their claim for $500, 000 in damages.
(Order 4, Feb. 16, 2016, Dkt. 32.)
receiving an extension of their deadline to amend, plaintiffs
filed their second amended complaint (Dkt. 40), which is now
before the court. Count One is now titled “malicious
harassment claim and illegal search.” (2d Am. Compl.
2.) And plaintiffs replead their state law indemnity and
respondeat superior claims as Counts Two and Three
following factual summary comes from the second amended
complaint. For purposes of deciding the Rule 12(b)(6) motion
that is before the court, the court treats all the
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and draws
all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs' favor.
Manistee Apts., LLC v. City of Chicago, 844 F.3d
630, 633 (7th Cir. 2016); Katz-Crank v. Haskett, 843
F.3d 641, 646 (7th Cir. 2016).
the allegations in the complaint stem from an interaction
with police that occurred on July 22, 2014, but the
plaintiffs describe a separate incident in their second
amended complaint that occurred approximately one week
earlier. (See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) In that
earlier incident, two Chicago police officers stopped the
plaintiffs without probable cause, made them stand with their
hands on a car, and ran “their hands all over [the
plaintiffs].” (Id.) The officers covered their
badges. (Id.) They searched Casimir's book bag
and Dumas' purse before telling them that they could
week later, on July 22, 2014, the plaintiffs stopped at a bus
stop to fix a wheel that had broken on one of the suitcases
they were pulling. (Id. ¶ 5.) An unmarked
police car pulled up next to them and two Chicago police
officers got out, covering their badges. (Id.) At
least one of the officers yelled, “You drinking [sic],
I see a beer on the ground don't you lie to me because I
can take both of you down.” (Id.) The officers
searched Casimir's pockets. (Id. ¶ 6.)
Dumas initially refused to show the officers her
identification when they asked for it, but she relented
because Casimir told her that they would have to go to the
police station if she did not. (Id.)
officers forged Casimir and Dumas'
signatures on tickets that falsely accused them of
drinking a Coors beer. (Id. ¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiffs
first learned of the tickets when they received a default
administrative order on or around September 18, 2014.
(Id. ¶ 4.) The Circuit Court of Cook County may
have dismissed the ...