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.

Jones v. Mooney

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 12, 2019

CORBIN D. JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
NEILL MOONEY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          J. PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This is a prisoner civil-rights case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Corbin D. Jones asserts claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Mem. & Order 1, ECF No. 20). Defendant Neill Mooney filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 45). Magistrate Judge Mark Beatty issued a Report and Recommendation (R. & R.) recommending that the Court grant Defendant's motion, dismiss Defendant Mooney, and grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (R. & R., ECF No. 61). Plaintiff objected, (Obj., ECF No. 62), prompting de novo review, SDIL-LR 73.1(b).

         II. PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL HISTORY

         On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff was released from the hospital after suffering a workplace injury and spent the night as his mother's home. (Pl. Dep. 10, ECF No. 46-1). The following night, Plaintiff was singing loudly in his bedroom upstairs. (Id. at 12-13). His mother confronted him and ordered him to leave her home. (Id.). When Plaintiff refused, his mother informed him that she was calling the police. (Id. at 14).

         Defendant, Officer Greenwood, and other police officers responded to the dispatch call, and Plaintiff's mother escorted them through the home. (Compl. 3, ECF No. 1). The officers met Plaintiff at the bottom of the stairs leading to his bedroom. (Id.; Pl. Dep. 15). Plaintiff's mother stood next to the officers and did nothing-“she let the police take care” of it and walked away. (Pl. Dep. 15-16).

         Plaintiff told the officers that he needed time to collect his belongingss. (Id. at 16). After a few minutes, Defendant (or Officer Greenwood) entered Plaintiff's room to supervise him. (Id.; Compl. 3). Defendant (or Officer Greenwood) then discovered marijuana and a crystalline substance on Plaintiff's table, and Plaintiff was placed under arrest. (Pl. Dep. 16; Compl. 3).

         In April 2017, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in this Court. (Compl. 1). The Court conducted a threshold review of the Complaint, articulated Plaintiff's claims, and dismissed those that lacked merit. (Mem. & Order 1, ECF No. 12). Two claims survived: Count 1 alleges that Defendant violated the Fourth Amendment when Defendant entered his room without a warrant or consent; and Count 2 alleges that Defendant violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because Defendant failed to recite his Miranda rights upon arrest. (Id. at 4-5).

         Defendant motioned for summary judgment. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 45). Magistrate Judge Beatty issued a R. & R. recommending that the Court grant Defendant's motion but grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint and name Officer Greenwood as the defendant. (R. & R., ECF No. 61). Plaintiff objected. (Obj., ECF No. 62).

         Plaintiff's objection centers around Magistrate Judge Beatty's factual findings. Interpreting the pro se filing liberally and interpreting it in a manner to raise the strongest arguments that Plaintiff suggests, see Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam), the Court identifies the following objections: (1) the R. & R. maintains that Plaintiff's mother called the police and invited them into her home, whereas Plaintiff maintains that the police forcibly entered his room without his or his mother's permission; and (2) the R. & R. maintains that Plaintiff mistakes Defendant for Officer Greenwood, whereas Plaintiff insists that Defendant is the proper party in this case.

         III. LAW & ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff's claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments lack merit. First, there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Plaintiff's mother provided implied consent for the officers to enter Plaintiff's room and remove him from her home. Moreover, Plaintiff was not entitled to a Fifth Amendment Miranda warning absent a custodial interrogation. Finally, the Sixth Amendment is inapplicable to this case because its protections are not triggered until the commencement of adversarial judicial proceedings. Since there were no underlying constitutional violations, the Court need not address Defendant's qualified immunity defense or the personal responsibility requirement, and Plaintiff is not entitled to amend the Complaint.

         A. Standard of Review

         Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A “genuine dispute” exists when a rational factfinder, considering the evidence in the summary judgment record, could find in favor of the non-moving party. See Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 587 (2009). Accordingly, a dispute is genuine where there is a real basis for it in the evidentiary record. A genuine dispute is not created by simply positing a factual scenario that is plainly contradicted by the summary judgment record. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Disputes (even if genuine) over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. See id. The moving party can meet is burden by pointing out for the Court an absence of evidence in support ...


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.