United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 2019, Plaintiff Robert Humes filed a five-count
Complaint against Defendants Samuel Rosario, who was at all
times relevant employed as a police officer for the City of
Springfield; Kenny Winslow, the Chief of Police; and the City
of Springfield, Illinois. Officer Rosario and Chief Winslow
are sued in their official and individual capacities.
Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Officer Rosario unreasonably seized Plaintiff
and deprived Plaintiff of liberty without due process of law
in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution (Count One) and alleging
that Chief Winslow and the City of Springfield failed to
train Officer Rosario and other officers in the Springfield
Police Department (Count Two). Plaintiff also brings state
law claims against Officer Rosario for assault and battery
and against the City under a respondeat superior liability
theory (Counts Three through Five).
City and Chief Winslow move to dismiss the claims against
them. The Motion to Dismiss (d/e 4) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. Count Two is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Count Five states a claim that the
City is liable under a theory of respondeat superior for
Officer Rosario's alleged assault and battery of
Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff
brings claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions
arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States”). The Court has supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C.
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint. Christensen v. Cty. of Boone, Ill., 483
F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). To state a claim for relief, a
plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of
the claim showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief and
giving the defendants fair notice of the claims. Tamayo
v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true
and construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's
favor. Id. However, the complaint must set forth
facts that plausibly demonstrate a claim for relief. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A
plausible claim is one that alleges factual content from
which the Court can reasonably infer that the defendants are
liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Merely reciting the
elements of a cause of action or supporting claims with
conclusory statements is insufficient to state a cause of
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
following facts come from the Complaint and are accepted as
true at the motion to dismiss stage. Tamayo, 526
F.3d at 1081.
February 27, 2017, Officer Rosario arrived at Plaintiff's
residence to investigate a possible crime committed by an
individual other than Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 9. During
Officer Rosario's official investigation of the possible
crime, he had a conversation with Plaintiff. Id.
¶ 10. During the conversation with Plaintiff, Officer
Rosario suddenly “assaulted and beat” Plaintiff.
Id. ¶ 11. Officer Rosario tackled Plaintiff,
physically restrained him, and repeatedly punched Plaintiff
on his face, head, and other parts of his body. Id.
¶ 13. Plaintiff did not verbally or physically provoke
Officer Rosario. Id. ¶ 12. Officer Rosario did
not witness Plaintiff commit a crime or have probable cause
to believe Plaintiff committed any crime. Id. ¶
15. Officer Rosario's assault on Plaintiff resulted in
Plaintiff being physically and emotionally injured and made
to suffer public ridicule and personal embarrassment.
Id. ¶ 18.
further alleges that Chief Winslow and the City were
responsible for the administration of the Springfield Police
Department and the development of policy and training of said
department. Compl. ¶¶ 19, 20. Chief Winslow and the
City failed to properly train and instruct Officer Rosario
and officers of the Springfield Police Department and this
failure resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to an
unjustified assault. Id. ¶ 28. Chief Winslow
and the City knew that their course and habits of conduct
violated known and established constitutionally protected
rights and that their acts were carried out willfully,
wantonly, maliciously, and with deliberate indifference to
the rights of Plaintiff. Id. ¶¶ 30, 31.
2019, the City and Chief Winslow filed a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Defendants move to dismiss Count Two, the failure to train
claim against the City and Chief Winslow, and Count Five, the
respondeat superior claim against the City.