United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sidney has sued Chicago police officers Kevin Osborn and
Alfonso Herrera, the City of Chicago, Robert Morris
University Illinois (RMU), and Luis Alejo, a Chicago police
officer who also works as a private security guard for RMU.
Following previous dismissals, Sidney has the following
claims remaining: a claim against Osborn, Herrera, and Alejo
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest; a state law
malicious prosecution claim against Alejo and RMU; and a
state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress against Alejo and against RM U.Sidney also asserts a
claim against the City of Chicago under 745 Ill. Comp. Stat.
10/9-102 for indemnification of Osborn and Herrera. The
defendants have moved for summary judgment on the remaining
a not-for-profit educational institution. Sidney graduated
from RMU in 1987, and he used the library frequently as an
alumnus. On June 25, 2014, Sidney arrived at the RMU library
between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and lawfully accessed the
library using his alumni identification card.
library and restrooms close at 10:00 p.m. Sidney left the
library at 9:35 p.m. and stopped to use the men's
restroom on his way out. While Sidney was in the restroom,
someone knocked on the door and told him he needed to leave.
Sidney answered that he would be out in a few minutes. About
two minutes later, someone returned, knocked on the door, and
again told Sidney he needed to leave.
Sidney left the restroom, he approached a man in the hallway
and asked if he had knocked on the restroom door. The man-RMU
security guard Matthew Nomellini-told Sidney that he had not
but that he would call the person who had. Nomellini then
called Alejo, who was working that night as an RMU security
guard. Alejo says he observed Sidney acting aggressively
toward Nomellini. Sidney denies this. Sidney asked Alejo if
he had been knocking on the restroom door, saying, "The
reason I'm asking you is because I am just inquiring is
there something I need to know? Is something going on?"
RMU's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. B at 99:5-12. Sidney and
Alejo exchanged words about bathroom closing procedures and
disagreed about when closing procedures begin.
point during this discussion, Sidney told Alejo he was an RMU
alumnus, and Alejo asked Sidney for his identification card.
Sidney removed a stack of cards from his wallet and began
going through them. When Alejo saw Sidney's alumni
identification card, he reached out and took it. Alejo then
told Sidney that he was revoking his alumni privileges and
told him how to retrieve his alumni identification card at a
later date. The parties agree that Alejo told Sidney, several
times, that he had to leave the premises, and that if he did
not, he would be arrested. See Pl.'s Resp. to
RMU's LR 56.1 Stat. ¶¶ 31-32. The parties
dispute whether Alejo, in his capacity as an RMU security
guard, had the authority to revoke Sidney's alumni
privileges. They also dispute whether Sidney knew that
Alejo was an RMU security guard. Sidney says he initially
assumed this but that he began to doubt it when Alejo grabbed
his identification card.
asked Alejo why he took his identification card, and Alejo
replied, "I can do that. . . . I'm the police."
Id. ¶ 30. Sidney says he asked for proof but
that Alejo would not show him any form of identification.
then radioed the lobby security guards and asked them to call
the Chicago police. Sidney agrees this happened but says that
he asked Alejo to call the police so that he could
verify Alejo's identity. There was also a verbal exchange
between Alejo and Sidney. According to Sidney, Alejo told
Sidney he was acting like a fifteen-year-old. Sidney admits
that he called Alejo a clown and Nomellini an idiot.
Alejo, Nomellini, and Nicole Mayoski, another security guard,
went to the lobby to wait for the police. Eventually officers
Osborn and Herrera arrived. Sidney says that he told Osborn,
"I had to stay on the premises" because Alejo had
"snatched my I.D. out of my hand, stating he was a
police officer. I asked him for identification to verify
that. He refused to give it to me, so I asked him to call the
police." RMU's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. B at
179:16-180:5. In the officers' presence, Alejo repeated
his last name but did not provide additional identification
information. Osborn then said to Sidney, "You have his
name. Now get your things and just take it over with the
administration tomorrow." Pl.'s Stat. of Add'l
Facts ¶ 27. Sidney and Osborn then walked toward the
lobby exit, they exchanged pleasantries, and Sidney walked
outside toward the bus stop.
Sidney was leaving, he "looked back and saw Alejo
standing next to Officer Osborn, and Alejo was moving his
finger back and forth while pointing at Osborn's chest as
if Alejo was berating Osborn." Id. ¶ 29.
About fifteen seconds after Sidney left the building, Osborn
and Herrera came outside, motioned for Sidney to come toward
them, and arrested him.
says that Alejo told him that he wanted to sign a complaint
charging Sidney with trespassing. Alejo testified that he was
"adamant" that he wanted to sign the complaint,
RMU's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. A at 78:24-79:2, and Sidney
does not dispute this fact. Arthur Gould, a security guard in
the lobby, testified that after Sidney left the building, he
observed Alejo having an "animated" conversation
with one of the officers. Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to RMU's
Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 5 at 22:21-23:13. Gould testified that
the officer told Alejo that "he couldn't arrest Mr.
Sidney because he was an alumni, you know, he had ID."
Id. at 23:14-24:4. Gould also testified that he
heard Osborn ask Alejo, "Are you sure you want me to
arrest him for trespassing?" Id. at 24:24-25:8.
Similarly, lobby security guard Ernest Parks testified that
after Sidney left the building, he heard Alejo tell one of
the officers that he "wanted [Sidney] arrested for
trespassing" and that Alejo repeated this after the
officer asked Alejo if he was sure. Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to
RMU's Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 6 at 20:13-21:7, 55:8-17.
Osborn and Herrera arrested Sidney, they transported him to a
police station, where he was held for approximately five
hours. At some point, Alejo signed, as an "Agent for
RMU," a misdemeanor complaint for criminal trespass to
real property. Pl.'s Mem. in Opp. to RMU's Mot. for
Summ. J., Ex. 7. Sidney contends that Alejo did not sign the
complaint until after the officers had arrested him. The
signed complaint contains pre-printed language stating that
Sidney "[d]id knowingly enter/remain upon the
land/building of Robert Morris University . . . after
receiving, prior to such entry, notice from RMU Security that
such entry was forbidden." Id. The complaint
cites 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/21-3(a)(1). Section 21-3(a)
states: "A person commits criminal trespass to real
property when he or she: (1) knowingly and without lawful
authority enters or remains within or on a building; (2)
enters upon the land of another, after receiving, prior to
the entry, notice from the owner or occupant that the entry
is forbidden; (3) remains upon the land of another, after
receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart."
Sidney went to trial on the trespassing charge. Alejo
testified as the prosecution's only witness. On February
7, 2015, a judge found Sidney not guilty after a bench trial.
argues that as a result of these events, he has experienced
mental suffering, including feelings of humiliation, anxiety,
depression, and fear. For example, he feels anxious around
the police and fears for the safety of his African-American
son. According to Sidney, he lost approximately ten pounds
between his arrest and his criminal trial, and he has
experienced sleep loss and lethargy. He concedes that he has
not sought medical treatment.
judgment is appropriate if the moving party "shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
[that] the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material
fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's
favor. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).
The Court does not ...