2022) (“ProbableĬause for an arrest provides an absolute defense to a false arrest claim.”). In their motion to dismiss,ĭefendant officers assert Common has pleaded herself out of court by alleging facts that show they 2021) (citation omitted).Ĭommon first brings a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. Motion on only ‘the complaint itself, documents attached to the complaint, documents that areĬritical to the complaint and referred to in it, and information that is subject to proper judicial “A defendant filing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) can base its Plaintiff alleges “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that theĭefendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. A complaint is facially plausible when the Plaintiff must “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. When considering dismissal of a complaint, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factualĪllegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Was no basis to charge her with making a false police report.Ī motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim tests the sufficiency Would have been able to listen to the first 911 call that Common made and would have learned there According to Common, had the City corrected this flaw, the officers Recordings of 911 calls.” Common alleges the City was on notice of this flaw in its policies throughĪn internal review completed for the City in 2016 by the Chicago law firm Winston & StrawnĮntitled “Report to the City of Chicago Concerning Review of the Department of Law’s FederalĬivil Rights Litigation Division.” Common alleges that the City’s failure to correct this flaw shows aĬase: 1:21-cv-05198 Document #: 36 Filed: 08/23/22 of 7 PageID #:168Ĭonscious decision not to act. Supervisors could investigate the 911 calls by accessing the 911 recordings because “the City ofĬhicago had previously made an intentional decision to prevent its police officers from accessing Remained pending until early 2020 when her defense attorney obtained recordings of the 911 calls.ĭefense counsel provided the recordings to the prosecution, who recognized there was no basis toĪs to the City of Chicago’s liability, Common alleges neither the arresting officers nor their Police station charging her with making a false police report. Nevertheless, officers detained Common overnight at a Not that she stated a police officer was shot. Common, however, repeatedly told theĭefendant officers that her 911 calls were about her ex-boyfriend’s violation of a protection order, Preliminary examination” containing the false statement that she had knowingly and intentionallyĬalled 911 and stated that a police officer was shot. In addition, Common maintains defendant Officer Ritchie signed a “complaint for Common contends that the officers did not have an arrest warrant and did not observe Defendant officers did not arrest Common’s ex-boyfriend, however, but arrestedĬommon. Were aware Common’s ex-boyfriend was violating an order of protection and had assaultedĬommon. Defendant officers SzlagaĪnd Ritchie responded to this call and spoke to Common’s ex-boyfriend. Her ex-boyfriend was still at her home and violating a protection order. Officers left without speaking to Common.Ĭommon alleges she made a second 911 call around 11:27 p.m. Who assured the officers that everything was fine, and that Common had made a prank call. Police officers responded to Common’s home and talked to her ex-boyfriend, Common told theĭispatcher to “please send the police,” after which her ex-boyfriend grabbed the phone and on October 1, 2019, to make a domestic violence complaint against her exboyfriend, who was threatening her and violating an order of protection. In her amended complaint, Common alleges she telephoned the Chicago emergency number This lawsuit is Common’s Fourth Amendment false arrest claim. Also, the Court grants with prejudice the City’s motion to dismiss. Reasons, the Court denies in part and grants in part with prejudice defendant officers’ motion toĭismiss. Motions to dismiss brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Before the Court are the City’s and defendant officers’ Department of Social Services, 436 U.S.Ħ58, 98 S.Ct. Plaintiff Sheila Common brings the present amended complaint against defendants City ofĬhicago and Chicago Police Officers Ryan Ritchie and Jeremiah Szlaga alleging Fourth andįourteenth Amendment claims, as well as a claim under Monell v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |