United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ST. EVE United States District Judge.
present consolidated lawsuits are based on a tragic incident
that took place at Defendant Northwestern Medicine Delnor
Hospital (hereinafter “Delnor Community
Hospital”) in Geneva, Illinois, where a Kane County
Correctional Officer lost control of pretrial detainee Tywon
Salters, who then took nurses hostage at gunpoint and
physically assaulted two of the nurses. After a three-hour
hostage standoff, Kane County S.W.A.T team members shot and
killed Salters. Four nurses, two of their husbands
(“Doe Plaintiffs”), and two hospital patients,
Victoria Weiland and Deanna Chrones (“Patient
Plaintiffs”), have brought claims against Defendants
Delnor Community Hospital, Kane County, Kane County
Correctional Officer Shawn Loomis, and Apex3 Security based
on their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right
to bodily integrity and common law negligence pursuant to the
Court's original and supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1367(a).
particular, in their Second Amended Complaint, the Jane Doe
Plaintiffs bring the following claims: (1) substantive due
process against Defendant Loomis (Counts I, VII, XI, XIV);
and (2) common law negligence against Apex3 Security (Counts
III, IX, XII, XV). The John Doe Defendants bring loss of
consortium claims based on their wives' substantive due
process claims (Counts II and VIII) and common law negligence
claims (Counts IV and X). The Doe Plaintiffs also bring
indemnification claims against Kane County in the remaining
counts pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/9-102. Similarly, in their
First Amended Complaint, the Patient Plaintiffs bring: (1) a
substantive due process claim against Defendant Loomis (Count
I); (2) a negligence claim against Defendant Apex3 Security
(Count II); and (3) a negligence claim against Defendant
Delnor Community Hospital (Count III). The Patient Plaintiffs
also bring an indemnification claim under 745 ILCS 10/9-102
against Kane County (Count IV).
the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss brought
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the
following reasons, the Court grants in part Defendant Kane
County's motion to dismiss in relation to the John Doe
constitutional loss of consortium claims alleged in Counts II
and VIII of the Second Amended Complaint, along with the John
Doe Plaintiffs' indemnification claims related to their
constitutional loss of consortium in Counts VI and X. The
Court denies the remainder of Defendant Kane County's
motions to dismiss. Further, the Court denies Defendant
Loomis' and Defendant Apex3 Security's motions to
dismiss in their entirety. Last, the Court grants Defendant
Delnor Community Hospital's motion to dismiss Count III
of the Patient Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014); see also
Hill v. Serv. Emp. Int'l Union, 850 F.3d 861, 863
(7th Cir. 2017). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). Pursuant to the federal pleading standards, a
plaintiff's “factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Put differently, a
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). When determining the sufficiency of a complaint under
the plausibility standard, courts accept all well-pleaded
facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor. See Cannici v. Vill. of Melrose
Park, 885 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2018).
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and the Patient
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint allege that Tywon
Salters served a sentence in the Illinois Department of
Corrections for Class 2 felonies and was released on parole
in October 21, 2016. (R. 24, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶
15-16; R. 57, First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Less than
five months later, on March 11, 2017, law enforcement
officers arrested Salters and booked him into the Kane County
Jail on felony charges related to his receiving and
possessing a stolen vehicle. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 17;
First Am. Compl. ¶ 13.) Based on Salters' violent
past, the Kane County State's Attorney successfully
argued against any bond reduction that would allow Salters
out of custody. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 19.) At that time,
Kane County Correctional Officers knew that Salters took
medications for his mental conditions and that Salters was a
member of the Black Disciple street gang. (Second Am. Compl.
¶¶ 15, 20; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 14.)
7, 2017, while in custody, Salters ingested hydrogen
peroxide, after which Kane County Correctional Officers
transported him to Delnor Community Hospital, and once
released, Kane County officials placed him on suicide watch
at the Kane County Jail. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶
21-23; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 15-16.) The next day,
Salters ingested a jail-issued sandal and liquid cleaner,
and, once again, Kane County Correctional Officers
transported him to Delnor Community Hospital for medical
treatment. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-25, First Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 17-18.) On May 9, 2017, the hospital
transferred Salters to the medical-surgical unit on the third
floor of the hospital where he stayed until the incident that
took place on May 13, 2017. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶
26-27; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.) Plaintiffs
assert that during that time period, Kane County Correctional
Officers were aware that Salters was combative,
uncooperative, and manipulative. (Second Am. Compl. ¶
32; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22-23.) Further, Plaintiffs
state that Kane County Correctional Officers, including
Defendant Loomis, were aware that Salters was a flight risk
and posed a serious danger to the hospital staff, nurses, and
patients. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 33; First Am. Compl.
allege that pursuant to the polices of the Kane County
Sheriff's Office, Kane County Correctional Officers were
required to protect hospital staff, nurses, and patients from
Salters while he was at Delnor Community Hospital. (Second
Am. Compl. ¶ 42; First Am. Compl. ¶ 37.) Also,
armed Kane County Correctional Officers were to guard and
maintain control over Salters at all times while he was a
patient, including that Salters' leg was to remain
shackled to his hospital bed. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶
37-39; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-34.)
8, 2017, while in the emergency room of Delnor Community
Hospital, Salters asked to use the bathroom, at which time
the Kane County Correctional Officer guarding him released
Salters from his shackles, vacated the room, and left Salters
alone with a nurse while he used the toilet. (Second Am.
Compl. ¶ 46; First Am. Compl. ¶ 41.) The hospital
notified the Kane County Sheriff's Office and Apex3
Security of this incident. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 46;
First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 41-42.) On both May 11 and May
12, 2017, Correctional Officers unshackled Salters and
allowed him to walk unrestricted through the hallways on the
third floor of the hospital. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶
51, 52; First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47, 48.) Correctional
Officers also allowed Salters' unrestricted use of the
telephone in his hospital room. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 49;
First Am. Compl. ¶ 45.)
morning of May 13, 2017, nurses observed Kane County
Correctional Officers sitting in Salters' hospital room
using their electronic devices while Salters was unshackled.
(Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 53-54; First Am. Compl.
¶¶ 49-50.) Sometime thereafter, Correctional
Officer Defendant Loomis began guarding Salters and removed
Salters' leg shackle more than once so that Salters could
use the toilet. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57, 59; First
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51-52.) After unshackling Salters,
Defendant Loomis did not restrain or shackle Salters after he
used the bathroom. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 58, 60;
First Am. Compl. ¶ 53.) Instead, Defendant Loomis
allowed Salters to remain unshackled and without any
restraints in his hospital room for at least thirty minutes.
(Second Am. Compl. ¶ 62; First Am. Compl. ¶ 53).
Jane Doe III then entered Salters' hospital room and
observed him sitting unrestrained on the side of his hospital
bed, after which she asked Defendant Loomis why Salters was
not restrained. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 61.) Defendant
Loomis did not respond. (Id.) After Jane Doe III
left, Salters grabbed Defendant Loomis' 9mm handgun and
ran out of his hospital room onto the third floor despite
Defendant Loomis' duty to protect and holster his firearm
so that no one would be unable to gain access to it.
(Id. ¶¶ 63-64; First Am. Compl.
¶¶ 43, 54-55.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that
after Defendant Loomis lost control of Salters, he did not
protect or warn hospital staff, nurses, or patients. (Second
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 65-66; First Am. Compl. ¶¶
56-57.) Rather, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Loomis ran
from the situation and purposely hid in another hospital
room. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 64; First Am. Compl. ¶
meantime, Salters went to an office where he took Jane Doe I
hostage, forced her to remove her clothes, threatened her,
and physically and verbally abused her while holding her at
gunpoint. (Second Am. Compl. ¶ 67; First Am. Compl.
¶ 58.) Jane Doe II then entered the office, at which
time Salters took her hostage at gunpoint forcing her to go
to a “decontamination room” on the first floor of
the hospital. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 68, 69.) While
forcing Jane Doe II at gunpoint, Jane Doe IV came upon
Salters and Jane Doe II. (Id. ¶ 70.)
Thereafter, Salters held Jane Doe II hostage in the
decontamination room for over three hours at gunpoint, during
which he repeatedly beat her, forced her to remove her
clothes, violently raped her, threatened her life, and
verbally abused her. (Id. ¶ 71.) For part of
this time period, Jane Doe III was in close proximity to the
hostage situation. (Id.) In the interim, a standoff
ensued between Salters and Kane County S.W.A.T. team members
while Salters was holding Jane Doe II hostage. (Id.
¶ 72.) At approximately 4:00 p.m. on May 13, 2017, the
S.W.A.T. team members shot and killed Salters. (Id.
¶ 73.) The bullet that struck and killed Salters also
struck Jane Doe II. (Id.)
Defendant Loomis lost control of Salters, Patient Plaintiff
Weiland was able to hear screams from staff members whom
Salters was holding hostage and then she called 911. (First
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 59, 61.) Plaintiff Weiland remained
in her windowless room on the third floor of the hospital for
over an hour without knowing any information about her
safety. (Id. ¶¶ 60-61.) Plaintiff Chrones
was in a nearby hospital room on the third floor, could hear
hostage negotiations, and had a direct line of sight to the
S.W.A.T. team members - although hospital staff eventually
moved her to another room during the standoff. (Id.
¶¶ 61-63.) The Patient Plaintiffs assert that they
have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of
these events. (Id. ¶ 66.) Plaintiff Weiland
specifically alleges that she has been afraid to return to
any medical facilities since the hostage standoff and
Plaintiff Chrones alleges that she has suffered health
problems based on her anxiety resulting from the incident.
(Id. ¶¶ 67, 68.) Similarly, the Jane Doe
Plaintiffs allege that they suffered emotional, as well as
physical injuries, as a result of the hostage situation.
(Id. ¶¶ 79, 87, Second Am. Compl.
¶¶ 83, 93, 111, 121, 139, 147, 160, 168.)
further contend that during the relevant time period,
Defendant Apex3 Security was a private Illinois security
company responsible for the safety, security, and well-being
of Delnor Community Hospital's staff and patients.
(Second Am. Compl. ¶ 34; First Am. Compl. ¶¶
25-26.) Specifically, Delnor Community Hospital hired Apex3
Security to provide security for those on the hospital's
premises. (First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 27.) According
to Plaintiffs, Apex3 Security voluntarily provided security
measures for those who were lawfully on the premises and was
also tasked with monitoring inmates admitted to the hospital.
(Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35-36; First Am. Compl.
¶¶ 28-29.) As part of the contract ...