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.

Gianonne v. City of Naperville

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

June 13, 2017

Anthony Gianonne, Plaintiff,
v.
City of Naperville; Detective Gonzalez; Sargent Bissegger; Detective Cimilluca; Detective Umbenhower; Detective Kowal; Detective Spencer; Detective Shipanik; John Doe Officers ## 1-3, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Honorable Thomas M. Durkin United States District Judge

         Anthony Gianonne initiated this case by filing a complaint on October 3, 2016. R. 1. In that complaint, Gianonne alleged that on December 2, 2013, Defendants stopped him while he was driving his car, searched the car, and arrested him, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. ¶ 19.

         Naperville filed a motion to dismiss arguing that that Gianonne's claim was untimely. See R. 5. Since there is a two-year statute of limitations for constitutional torts in Illinois, Gianonne had to have filed any claim based on the December 2, 2013 traffic stop and arrest by December 2, 2015. See Savoy v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Stapinski v. Masterson, 2017 WL 497772 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2017). At the hearing on Naperville's motion on December 12, 2016, Gianonne's counsel acknowledged that Gianonne's claims were time-barred, and sought leave to file an amended complaint, which the Court granted. See R. 8.

         Gianonne filed an amended complaint on January 20, 2017. R. 9. The amended complaint continues to make a claim against the individual officers and Naperville based on the traffic stop and arrest that occurred on December 2, 2013, but does so under a state law theory of malicious prosecution (Count I). Id. The amended complaint also continues to make a claim against Naperville based on the traffic stop and arrest pursuant to Section 1983 (Count III). Id. It also adds the following allegations:

After Plaintiff's arrest and detention, on information and belief, the Naperville Police Department placed illegal tracking devices on Plaintiff's vehicle.
On information and belief, unidentified Officers placed these tracking devices and did so without a warrant or legal justification.
On belief these tracking devices remained on Plaintiff's vehicles until on or about May 2015 as the police conducted an investigation of illegal organized crime activities.
* * * *
In Case 1:15-cv-05052, filed in this very court the Naperville Police Department was sued for allegedly illegally searching and seizure of a home. In this complaint, Stephen Tracy has alleged similarly that the officer had no warrant, no consent to search and the occupant of the home had committed no crime.
In Case #15-cv-04608, currently pending in the Northern District of Illinois, the Naperville Police ha[ve] been accused of illegal search and seizure in an eerily similar action. In that case, the Plaintiff was parked in [a]
McDonald's parking lot, was blocked in by the Naperville Police and accused of DWI. Just as the matter before this court, the Defendant was exonerated when a state court judge ruled that the Naperville Police Department violated his constitutional rights by engaging in illegal searches and seizures.

R. 9 ¶¶ 54-56, 81-82. On the basis of the alleged placement of a tracking device on Gianonne's car, he makes claims against the individual officers for violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count II), and against Naperville (Count III).

         Naperville has moved to dismiss Count III. R. 10. As discussed, any claim made pursuant to Section 1983 based on the traffic stop and arrest in 2013- including his current Monell claim against Naperville-is time barred. Gianonne does not argue otherwise. Thus, to the extent Count III attempts to allege a Fourth Amendment violation against Naperville based on the traffic stop and arrest that occurred on December 2, 2013, Naperville's motion to dismiss that claim is granted.

         Gianonne's only remaining allegations concern the use by Naperville officers of a tracking device on his car. Although Gianonne argues that he “plainly alleges that [Naperville's] policy or custom of failing to supervise [and] train resulted in the constitutional violations, ” R. 17 at 8, neither his allegations nor his arguments cite Naperville's alleged use of the tracking device as support for Monell liability against Naperville. Rather, Gianonne only references the traffic stop as the basis for his Monell claims. Thus, despite Gianonne's additional allegations regarding the tracking device, he has not made a Monell claim based ...


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.