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.

Bailey v. Cook County

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

September 21, 2017

RYISHIE BAILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
COOK COUNTY, THOMAS J. DART, Individually, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          SARA L. ELLIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Ryishie Bailey, a former inmate at Cook County Department of Corrections (“CCDOC”), brings this suit against Defendant Thomas J. Dart under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Dart acted with deliberate indifference to Bailey's health and wellbeing in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment[1] rights arising from the conditions of his incarceration at CCDOC from April 9, 2012 through April 25, 2014. Bailey also brings a state law indemnification claim against Cook County pursuant to the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/9-102. Defendants move to dismiss Bailey's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the basis that it is barred by the statute of limitations and because it is insufficiently pleaded with respect to Dart. The Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss [24] because the applicable statute of limitations bars the FAC.

         BACKGROUND[2]

         Bailey was a pre-trial detainee at CCDOC from April 9, 2012 through April 25, 2014, at which time the State transferred him to Sheridan Correctional Facility.

         While detained at CCDOC, Bailey was exposed to excessive amounts of mold and mildew in areas of the facility, including the showers and empty cells. The presence of the mold and mildew went unaddressed by Dart throughout Bailey's detainment. As a result of his exposure to the mold and mildew, Bailey developed a variety of health issues, including difficulty breathing, wheezing, coughing, and migraine headaches. He continues to experiences these issues to this day.

         While detained at CCDOC, Bailey, along with 40 other inmates, filed grievances regarding the conditions at the jail. Bailey never received a response to his grievances and CCDOC never remediated the mold and mildew during his time there. Bailey also notified CCDOC staff on several occasions of the mold and mildew.

         Defendant Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County and the head of CCDOC. Dart has supervisory responsibility for CCDOC. During the relevant period, Dart took no actions to remedy the mold and mildew issue.

         Bailey filed his original complaint in this case on July 5, 2016. He filed the FAC on November 23, 2016.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all well- pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a claim's basis but must also be facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Statute of Limitations

         Defendants argue that Bailey's claims are barred by the statute of limitations because he filed his initial complaint more than two years after his April 25, 2014 departure from CCDOC. The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that need not be anticipated in the complaint in order to survive a motion to dismiss. United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 842 (7th Cir. 2005). But that is not the case where “the allegations of the complaint itself set forth everything necessary to satisfy the affirmative defense, such as when a complaint reveals that an action is untimely under the governing statute of limitations.” Id.; see also Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (considering statute of limitations defense on motion to dismiss where relevant dates were set forth in the complaint).

         Bailey's § 1983 claim is governed by the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims, in this case, two years. Henderson v. Bolanda, 253 F.3d 928, 931 (7th Cir. 2001); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-202. Additionally, federal courts borrow the state's tolling rules, ...


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.