United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. Guzmán, United States District Judge.
reasons stated below, George Filenko's motion to dismiss
Count I of the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted, and
plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied.
action, plaintiffs allege that their Fourth Amendment rights
were violated when they were arrested and detained in
conjunction with the investigation that occurred after the
death of Charles Joseph Gliniewicz, who was a police
lieutenant for the Village of Fox Lake, Illinois (the
“Village”). It was later revealed that Gliniewicz
had staged his suicide to look like a homicide. It is alleged
that prior to taking his own life, Gliniewicz sent a radio
transmission to the Village police department falsely stating
that he was in pursuit of three individuals, two “male
whites” and one “male black.” (ECF No. 93,
3d Am. Compl. ¶ 14.)
December 21, 2017, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order denying the Village's motion to dismiss Count II of
the Second Amended Complaint and granting defendant George
Filenko's motion to dismiss Count I of the Second Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 92.) The Court assumes familiarity with
that opinion and order and the facts and procedural history
of this case.
leave of court, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.
It contains the same claims plaintiffs previously asserted: a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful search and
seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count I) and a
Monell claim against the Village (Count II). The
only difference between the Second and Third Amended
Complaints is the addition of several paragraphs pertaining
to defendant Filenko, an attempt to cure the deficiencies the
Court previously discussed in its memorandum opinion. Filenko
moves to dismiss the claim asserted against him. Plaintiffs
move for class certification.
Filenko's Motion to Dismiss Count I for Failure to State
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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 444, 570 (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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556).
to the Third Amended Complaint, Filenko was the Commander of
the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force (the “Task
Force”), which assisted the Village with the
investigation of Gliniewicz's death. The Court previously
dismissed plaintiffs' claim against Filenko because
plaintiffs did not allege facts from which it could be
inferred that Filenko was personally involved in their
doctrine of respondeat superior cannot be used to
hold a supervisor liable for conduct of a subordinate that
violates a plaintiff's constitutional rights. Chavez
v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 651 (7th Cir. 2001).
In order for a supervisor to be liable, he must be
“personally responsible for the deprivation of the
constitutional right.” Matthews v. City of E. St.
Louis, 675 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2012). To have
personal involvement, the supervisor must “know about
the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or
turn a blind eye for fear of what [he] might see.”
Court held that plaintiffs' previous allegations against
Filenko were threadbare and thus insufficient. In addition to
those allegations, plaintiffs now allege the following:
• Filenko's personal involvement in the conduct
complained of herein was more extensive than simply
supervising the various involved officers, and rather must be
considered in light of the nature and scope of the Major
Crimes Taskforce agreement, separate and apart from Fox
Lake's de facto policy which led to the unlawful
detentions as has been, and will be, described herein.
• Once contacted by Fox Lake to assist in the
investigation, Filenko (as commander of the task force) and
the various officers comprising the task force acting under
Filenko's direction began investigating leads in the
manhunt for the fictitious “murderer, ” which