United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
L. ELLIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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  and by the City of Chicago . 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
The City's Motion to Dismiss Count II (Monell
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 ...