United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
Winslow and the City move to dismiss Counts Two and Five.
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 ...