United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
GREGORY A. SWITZER, Plaintiff,
THE VILLAGE OF GLASFORD, ILLINOIS, & ANDREW BURGESS, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
E. Shadid United States District Judge.
before the Court is Defendants' Combined Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Doc. 13. Plaintiff
filed a timely Response to that Motion. Doc. 15. For the
reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.
Gregory A. Switzer, is a resident of the Village of Glasford,
Peoria County, Illinois. Defendant Andrew Burgess
(“Burgess”), a police officer employed by
Defendant Village of Glasford, Illinois
(“Glasford”). Glasford owns, operates, maintains,
and otherwise controls the Glasford Police Department. Doc.
11, p. 2.
September 30, 2015, Burgess arrested Plaintiff in Peoria
County for driving under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff
claims Burgess was carrying out a policy and practice of
falsely creating criminal charges because, at the time of the
arrest, Burgess allegedly stated he was “trying to make
the charges go in such a direction.” Plaintiff was
subsequently booked, housed, and incarcerated at the Peoria
County Jail, although he bonded out within 24 hours after his
arrest. According to Plaintiff, Burgess detained, arrested,
and prosecuted Plaintiff without probable cause or
justification, and additionally swore to a false complaint
and falsely testified. Doc. 11, pp. 2-4.
January 19, 2016, the Circuit Court of Peoria County granted
Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Evidence of Intoxication
because it concluded Burgess lacked probable cause to arrest
Plaintiff. A Motion to Reconsider from the prosecution was
denied on August 2, 2016. Following an appeal by the State of
Illinois, the Motion to Quash Evidence of Intoxication Order
was affirmed, and on November 22, 2017, a petition for leave
to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court was denied. On
December 7, 2017, the case against Plaintiff was dismissed in
Peoria County Circuit Court. Doc 10, pp. 1-2; Doc. 11, p. 3.
People of the State of Illinois v. Gregory A.
Switzer, No. 15 DT 502 (January 19, 2016),
Aff'd 2017 Ill.App. (3d) 160441-U.
filed his original Complaint in this Court on November 21,
2018, raising various claims stemming from his arrest and
detention. Doc. 1. On February 4, 2019, this Court granted
Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint with regard to
alleging a proper Monell claim against Glasford.
Doc. 10. Plaintiff filed a timely Amended Complaint on
February 25, 2019. Doc. 11.
Amended Complaint is a five-count civil action for damages
relating to his alleged wrongful prosecution at the hands of
the Glasford Police Department. Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges “malicious prosecution” claims against
Burgess under both §1983 and Illinois Law (Counts I and
III, respectively); respondeat superior
“malicious prosecution” claims against Glasford
under both §1983 and Illinois law (Counts II and IV,
respectively); and an Illinois law indemnification claim
against Glasford (Count V). Doc. 10, p. 2.
April 1, 2019, Defendants Glasford and Burgess filed a
Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
(Doc. 13), to which Plaintiff responded on April 29, 2019.
Doc. 15. In their Motion, Defendants request dismissal of
Plaintiff's federal law claims (Counts I and II) pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and dismissal of Plaintiff's
state law claims (Counts III, IV, and V) pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Doc. 13, p. 1. The outcome of their
Motion turns on whether Plaintiff was ever seized by
Defendants for Fourth Amendment purposes, the date such
seizure ended, and when the statute of limitations thus began
to run. This Order follows.
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) challenges
whether a complaint sufficiently states a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Court accepts well-pleaded allegations in a complaint as
true and draws all permissible inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. See Bible v. United Student Aid Funds,
Inc., 799 F.3d 633, 639 (7th Cir. 2015). To survive a
motion to dismiss, the complaint must describe the claim in
sufficient detail to put defendants on notice as to the
nature of the claim and its bases, and it must plausibly
suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief. Bell
Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). A complaint need not allege specific facts, but it
may not rest entirely on conclusory statements or empty
recitations of the elements of the cause of action. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555.
have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on
three grounds: (1) Plaintiff was never seized as contemplated
by the Fourth Amendment; (2) since the alleged Fourth
Amendment seizure in Count I either did not occur or occurred
outside the statute of limitations, the Monell claim
is not actionable; and (3) this Court should relinquish
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims on the basis
that the federal claims should be dismissed. Defendants
request dismissal of Plaintiff's federal law claims
(Counts I and II) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and dismissal of Plaintiff's state law claims
(Counts III, IV, and V) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
Doc. 13, pp. 1, 11-12. The Court will examine each argument
COUNT I-MALICIOUS PROSECUTION (federal claim ...