United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
CORBIN D. JONES, Plaintiff,
NEILL MOONEY, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PHIL GILBERT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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,
PROCEDURAL & FACTUAL HISTORY
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
LAW & ANALYSIS
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.
Standard of Review
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 ...