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.

Humes v. Rosario

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division

August 19, 2019

ROBERT HUMES, Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL ROSARIO, in his official and individual capacities; KENNY WINSLOW, in his official and individual capacities; and THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS Defendants.

          OPINION

          SUE E. MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This cause is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (d/e 13) filed by Defendants City of Springfield and Springfield Police Chief Kenny Winslow. The Motion seeks to dismiss Counts II and V, the only counts brought against Chief Winslow and the City.

         The Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The official capacity claim against Chief Winslow in Count Two is dismissed but Count Two remains against the City and Chief Winslow in his individual capacity. Count Five is dismissed to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the City liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory but remains to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the City liable under a respondeat superior theory with respect to Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendant Officer Samuel Rosario-Counts Three and Four.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Robert Humes originally filed this suit in February 2019 against 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. Plaintiff sued Officer Rosario and Chief Winslow in their official and individual capacities.

         In June 2019, this Court dismissed Count Two, the failure to train claim, for failure to state a claim. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Count Five, finding Plaintiff stated a claim that the City is liable under a theory of respondeat superior for Officer Rosario's alleged assault and battery of Plaintiff. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend.

         On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a five-count Amended Complaint. 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 failed to train, instruct, and supervise 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 (Counts Three and Four) and against the City under a respondeat superior liability theory (Count Five).

         Chief Winslow and the City move to dismiss Counts Two and Five.

         II. JURISDICTION

         This 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. § 1391(b)(2).

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A 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).

         When 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 action. Id.

         IV. FACTS ALLEGED IN THE ...


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.