Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Malloyd v. County of St. Clair

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 30, 2018

COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, et al., Defendants.



         Pending before the Court are the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Thomas Trice, County of St. Clair, and St. Clair Sheriff's Department (Doc. 62) and Defendants IDOC[1], Angela Chaney, Thomas Gordon and Jesse Teverbaugh (Doc. 67). Plaintiff filed Responses (Docs. 69 and 71). For the following reasons, Defendants Chaney, Gordon, and Teverbaugh's motion is GRANTED and Defendants Trice, County of St. Clair, and St. Clair Sheriff's Department's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.


         In 2009, Plaintiff Christopher Malloyd was arrested for armed robbery. He was detained at the St. Clair County Jail from 2009 until 2011. While detained, Plaintiff met Defendant Thomas Trice who worked at the jail during that time. After serving time for his conviction, Plaintiff was released from the Illinois Department of Corrections on April 16, 2014.

         On September 13, 2014, Plaintiff attended an awards ceremony hosted by Unity Lutheran Church at the Collinsville Gateway Center in Collinsville, Illinois. Plaintiff's grandmother was being honored. Trice also received an award at the ceremony. After the ceremony Plaintiff and Trice had a verbal dispute and Plaintiff refused to shake Trice's hand. As a result of this encounter, Trice's wife called his former law enforcement partner Wiliam Kenney. Kenney reported the incident to St. Clair County Dispatch. Mark Terveer, an officer with the Collinsville Police Department, was dispatched to the scene. Upon arrival, Officer Terveer spoke with Plaintiff, Trice, Plaintiff's father Clifford Malloyd, and Plaintiff's then girlfriend.

         On September 15, 2014, Trice discovered that Plaintiff was on parole and filed a Criminal Complaint Report regarding the incident. He discussed the incident with Defendant Angela Chaney, IDOC Parole Commander, and provided her with his report. Chaney advised IDOC Chief of Parole, Jason Garnett, of her conversation with Trice. Garnett instructed then Chaney to issue a warrant. Chaney did not contact Plaintiff or his parole officers before applying for the warrant. She never contacted anyone with the Collinsville Police Department regarding the incident nor did she obtain the Collinsville Police Report.

         There are inconsistencies between Trice's Report and Officer Terveer and Plaintiff's accounts of the incident. In his Report, Trice states that he asked Officer Terveer to write a report because he feared for his life and the life of the people he was with at the event. However, Officer Terveer testified that Trice never informed him that he feared for his life. Trice also wrote in his Report that Plaintiff “walked towards me in an aggressive manner with his fist closed” and that he made threatening statements. He stated that he believed Plaintiff and his father were going to attack him. Trice's account of the incident is not documented in Officer Terveer's report and he denies being provided that information.

         The original draft of the Parole Violation Report and Notice of Charges was prepared by Gordon and later reviewed by Chaney. The Parole Violation Report is a 4-page document with 2 sections. The Notice of Charges section alleges that Plaintiff committed a variety of parole violations, including violation of a criminal statute and violations of "substance abuse PGM, Electronic detention, Anger management, No victim contact (any victim of prior offenses) seek employment and seek employment.” The narrative section of the Report contains one allegation of a parole violation, which mirrors Trice's Criminal Complaint Report. Trice's Report contains inconsistencies with Plaintiff's version of the incident as well as Officer Terveer's report.

         Plaintiff was arrested on the warrant by IDOC parole agents Defendants Thomas Gordon (Plaintiff's parole agent at the time) and Jesse Teverbaugh on September 15, 2014. Neither Gordon nor Teverbaugh were involved with the issuance of the warrant.

         The procedures for with respect to parole violations require that a parole violation report be prepared within three days and the parolee must be served with the violation report within five days. The parolee may then choose to have a preliminary hearing before a neutral arbitrator to determine if probable cause of a parole violation exists or waive the preliminary hearing and go before the Parole Review Board. Plaintiff received the Parole Violation Report on September 17, 2014. He signed it that same day and waived his preliminary hearing.

         Plaintiff was detained at Menard Correctional Center shortly after his arrest, where he remained for 53 days until his parole review hearing on November 5, 2014. The Board found that Plaintiff had not violated the terms of his parole, and he was released on November 6, 2014.


         Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party “must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). In deciding a summary judgment motion, the district court views the facts in the light most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

         Count I ...

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.