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.

Hendricks v. Lauber

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

May 31, 2018

TYRONE L. HENDRICKS, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL H. LAUBER, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          VIRGINIA M. KENDALL JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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.

         STATEMENT OF FACTS

         Defendants 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.

         By 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.

         Local 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.”).

         The 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.

         On 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).

         The 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).

         On 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).

         On 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).

         After 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).

         Hendricks 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).

         In the 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).

         730 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 ...

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.