United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
TYRONE L. HENDRICKS, Plaintiff,
PAUL H. LAUBER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VIRGINIA M. KENDALL JUDGE
Tyrone Hendricks filed a civil rights action on January 14,
2016 against the City of Chicago, Cook County and the Chicago
Police Department. (Dkt. 1). On June 20, 2016, Hendricks
filed his Second Amended Complaint against only Chicago
Police Detectives M. Fuller and Jacquelin Mok and Chicago
Police Officers Michael Rodriguez and Paul Lauber
(collectively, Defendants). (Dkt. 24). The Second Amended
Complaint alleges claims of false arrest under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Counts I and II), malicious prosecution under
state law (Count III), malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (Count IV), conspiracy to deny Plaintiff his
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V),
and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI).
(Id.). Defendants filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. (Dkt. 104).
Hendricks failed to file any response to Defendants'
motion, despite being provided two generous extensions of
time after twice missing his filing deadline. For the
following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 104) is granted.
filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on November 21, 2017.
(Dkt. 104). According to the court-ordered briefing schedule,
Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion was due on
December 19, 2017. (Dkt. 102). Plaintiff failed to file a
response by that date. On January 4, 2018, Plaintiff's
appointed counsel requested an extension of time to file the
past-due response. (Dkt. 108). The Court granted the request
and set a new filing deadline for Plaintiff's response of
January 31, 2018. (Dkt. 109). Plaintiff's appointed
counsel again failed to file any response to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment by the new deadline, including
any response to Defendants' Local Rule 56.1(a) Statement
of Uncontested Facts.
motion on February 28, 2018 and at a Court hearing on March
14, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court for the
first time that Plaintiff had not been in contact with his
appointed counsel since his release from incarceration in
October 2017 and had failed to provide counsel with his
address or other contact information. (Dkts. 116, 119).
During the March 14 hearing, Defense counsel advised that
Plaintiff was recently booked into Cook County Jail on March
6, 2018, and the Court directed Plaintiff's counsel to
contact and confer with his client to determine whether he
wished to proceed with his case. (Dkt. 119). During the March
14 hearing and in the corresponding docket entry, the Court
warned Plaintiff that “failure to cooperate with his
recruited Attorney can result in dismissal of his case for
want of prosecution.” (Id.). At a hearing on
April 24, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel reported to the Court
that he had been in contact with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff
advised he wished to proceed with the case. (Dkt. 123). The
Court set a new briefing schedule on Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment, providing Plaintiff a third
chance to file a response by May 15, 2018. (Id.).
Plaintiff failed yet again to file any response whatsoever to
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by the new
deadline, including any response to Defendants' Local
Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Uncontested Facts.
Rule 56.1(b) requires an opposing party to a motion for
summary judgment to file a concise response the movant's
statement of material facts. LR 56.1(3). Failure to do so
constitutes an admission of those uncontested facts.
Id. (“All material facts set forth in the
statement required of the moving party will be deemed to be
admitted unless controverted by the statement of the opposing
party.”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)
similarly provides that, if the nonmoving party “fails
to properly address another party's assertion of fact as
required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact
undisputed for the purposes of the motion.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2). Therefore, the Court construes
Hendricks' failure to respond in any way to
Plaintiff's Statement of Uncontested Facts as an
admission of those facts. See Whitfield v. Snyder,
263 Fed.Appx. 518, 521 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming holding
that “failure to respond to defendants' summary
judgment motion constituted an admission of the
defendants' material facts”); United States v.
Funds in Amount of Thirty Thousand Six Hundred Seventy
Dollars, 403 F.3d 448, 454 (7th Cir. 2005) (defendant
failed to dispute any material facts asserted by government
in support of summary judgment, so facts were deemed to be
admitted); Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th
Cir. 2003) (“We have consistently held that a failure
to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by the local rules
results in an admission.”).
following facts are taken from Defendants' Joint Local
Rule 56.1(a) Statement of Uncontested Facts (Dkt. 106) and
supported by the record and are not disputed.
September 5, 2014, Officers Lauber and Rodriguez were on
patrol in an unmarked vehicle when, at approximately 10:54
p.m., the Officers observed Hendricks in an alley urinating
on the wall of a building at 330 S. Sacramento Boulevard.
(Id. at ¶¶ 11-13). The Officers exited the
car and approached Hendricks in order to issue him a citation
for urinating on a public way. (Id. at ¶¶
14-16). When the Officers asked Hendricks for proof of
identification, he was unable to provide any. (Id.
at ¶¶ 17-18). The Officers placed Hendricks in
handcuffs and Officer Rodriguez conducted a custodial search
of him, during which Officer Rodriguez found a crack pipe in
the left pocket of Hendricks' hoodie. (Id. at
¶¶ 19-21). Officer Lauber then ran a name check for
Hendricks and discovered an active investigate alert for
Hendricks for failing to register as a sex offender.
(Id. at ¶¶ 22).
Officers transported Hendricks to the 11th District police
station for processing. Once at the station, Officer Lauber
prepared an Arrest Report and Property Inventory Report and
Officer Rodriguez prepared an Original Case Incident Report.
(Id. at ¶¶ 23-25, Exs. I-K). Officer
Rodriguez also prepared and signed two complaints against
Hendricks: a Misdemeanor/Ordinance Violation complaint for
urinating on a public way and a Misdemeanor Violation
complaint for possession of drug paraphernalia. (Id.
at ¶ 26, Exs. L-M). Officer Rodriguez then notified the
Area North Detective Division that Hendricks was in custody.
(Id. at ¶ 27).
September 7, 2014, Detectives Mok was assigned to investigate
whether Hendricks was a sex offender who had not registered
as required. (Id. at ¶ 28). Detective Fuller
assisted with the investigation. (Id. at ¶ 29).
The Detectives were informed that Hendricks had been arrested
on September 5, 2014 for urinating in a public way and
possession of drug paraphernalia and that a name check had
revealed that Hendricks had also failed to register as a sex
offender. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-31). During their
investigation, the Detectives learned that Hendricks was
required to register as a sex offender because of a 1989
conviction for criminal sexual assault, that he registered on
August 26, 2013 after being released from prison, and that
his 2013 registration was valid only until August 26, 2014.
(Id. at ¶¶ 32-34, Exs. C, H, R, N).
September 7, 2014, Detectives Mok and Fuller interviewed
Hendricks at the 11th District station, after advising him of
his Miranda rights and confirming he understood
them. (Id. at ¶¶ 35-38). During the
interview, Hendricks told the Detectives that he thought he
had been registered upon recently being released from Cook
County Jail. (Id. at ¶ 39). In their
investigation, the Detectives reviewed Hendricks'
criminal history and discovered that he had been arrested on
July 14, 2014 and released from the Cook County Jail on July
15, 2014. (Id. at ¶¶ 43-45).
the interview, Detective Mok contacted the Cook County Jail
and asked a correctional officer to check the jail's
records to determine if Hendricks had signed an Illinois Sex
Offender Registration Act Notification Form. (Id. at
¶¶ 40-41). The correctional officer did so and
faxed Detective Mok a copy of a Notification Form signed by
Hendricks on July 15, 2014 when he was released from Cook
County Jail. (Id. at ¶¶ 42, 46, Ex. O).
The Notification Form that Hendricks signed stated that he
was required to register on or before July 18, 2014.
(Id. at ¶ 46, Ex. O).
failed to register on or before July 18, 2014. (Id.
at ¶ 47, Ex. C). Hendricks also failed to register on or
before August 26, 2014. (Id.). As of September 5,
2014, the last time Hendricks had registered was on August
26, 2013. (Id. at ¶¶ 48-50, Ex. C, H).
afternoon of September 7, 2014, Detective Mok presented
Hendricks' case to an Assistant State's Attorney, who
approved felony charges against Hendricks for failure to
register as a sex offender. (Id. at ¶¶
51-54). Officers Lauber and Rodriguez did not speak with the
ASA about the case. (Id.). Detective Mok then signed
a Complaint against Hendricks for violating the Illinois Sex
Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150. (Id. at
¶ 56, Ex. Q). The Complaint stated that Hendricks
“knowingly failed to register . . . within the time
period prescribed in subsection (c) of 730 ILCS 150/3.”
(Id. at Ex. Q).
ILCS 150/3 provides, in relevant part:
(a) A sex offender . . . or sexual predator shall, within the
time period prescribed in subsections (b) and (c), register
in person and provide accurate information as required ...