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.

Wilson v. City of Chicago

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

October 18, 2017

STEVEN WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation; OFFICER B.M. COX, individually and as an agent of the CITY OF CHICAGO; OFFICER R.R. PRUGER, individually and as an agent of the CITY OF CHICAGO; UNKNOWN CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS; Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          SARA L. ELLIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Steven Wilson alleges that members of the City of Chicago's (“the City”) Police Department wrongly beat, arrested, and detained him after he chased vandals in his neighborhood. He brings a four-count complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Officer B.M. Cox, Officer R.R. Pruger, and other Unknown Police Officers. Before the Court are partial motions to dismiss by Officers Cox and Pruger [21] and by the City of Chicago [23]. Because Wilson alleges Officers Cox and Pruger committed malicious prosecution in violation of Wilson's Fourteenth Amendment rights, the Court grants Officers Pruger and Cox's motion to dismiss Count IV without prejudice to amending and pleading a Fourth Amendment claim that conforms with Supreme Court law. And because Wilson fails to allege any policy, custom, or practice with specificity, the Court grants the City's motion to dismiss Count II without prejudice.

         BACKGROUND [1]

         The morning of April 7, 2015, Wilson heard a familiar sound near his apartment. At least five times already, someone had smashed out the windows of his truck. When he heard the sound of breaking glass again, he ran to his truck to attempt to catch the people who were vandalizing his vehicle.

         Wilson got in his truck and began pursuing the vandals, who fled in a truck of their own. Wilson called 9-1-1, telling the police about the broken windows and informing them that he was following the individuals he believed were responsible. The police arrived, setting up a blockade to stop the vandals' truck. Wilson pulled up behind the vandals to pin them in. He then got out of his truck to stop them from running away.

         But when Wilson stepped out of his vehicle, Officer Pruger, Officer Cox, and unknown police officers punched Wilson in the back of his head and tackled him to the ground. They struck him in the head approximately five or six times despite Wilson pleading with them to stop attacking him. Unknown police officers informed Wilson that he would be “going down” because he “swung on an officer.” Doc. 1 ¶ 28. Wilson requested to receive treatment at the scene but someone told him that if he took a ride in an ambulance, he'd regret it, threatening him to keep his mouth shut. Officers Pruger and Cox put Wilson in the back of a squad car and drove him to the police station.

         At the police station, Wilson attempted to explain that he was a victim, but someone, either a police supervisor or captain, cursed at Wilson to be silent. Wilson asked to make a call to get medication that he needed, and unknown police officers told Wilson that they would put him in a cell with the vandals.

         Eventually, Wilson was placed in a cell directly next to the vandals, who began taunting him. He had a panic attack and urinated on himself. He also realized he was bleeding from his head. He also witnessed multiple police officers re-writing their reports of the incident while laughing and ridiculing him.

         Wilson was charged with aggravated assault, disregarding a stop sign, going the wrong way on a one-way street, improper traffic lane usage, reckless driving and driving 15-20 mph above the speed limit. Those charges were dismissed in September 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. The City's Motion to Dismiss Count II (Monell Claim)

         In Count II, Wilson alleges that the City had in effect policies, customs, or practices that condoned, fostered, and drove the unconstitutional conduct of Officers Pruger and Cox and other unknown Chicago police officers, pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The City argues that the Court should dismiss Count II because it ...


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.