Coleman v. City of Peoria et al

Filing 44

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 23, 2016. Defendant's 22 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Count IV of Plaintiff's 1 Complaint, for malicious prosecution, is DISMISSED. (SC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 23 March, 2016 10:43:49 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER COLEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF PEORIA, PATRICK RABE,
TERRY PYATT, TIMOTHY ANDERSON,
MICHAEL FORD, and other as-yet
unidentified Peoria Police Officers,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:15-cv-01100-SLD-TSH

ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal
malicious prosecution claim, ECF No. 22.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, alleges as Count IV, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that
Defendants engaged in malicious prosecution by falsely accusing him of armed robbery and
sexual assault, Compl. ¶¶ 74–78. Defendants argue that a federal malicious prosecution claim is
not cognizable where a state analogue exists. Mot. Dismiss ¶ 4. Plaintiff concedes the validity
of this position, both in a footnote in his complaint and in his response to the motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 24, and explains that he brings the claim only to preserve it for appeal should the
Seventh Circuit change its position or be directed to do so by the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff is correct to concede the point; the Seventh Circuit does not permit an action for
malicious prosecution under § 1983 if a state remedy exists, which it does in Illinois. See, e.g.,

1

Parish v. City of Chicago, 594 F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir. 2009); Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d
747, 751 (7th Cir.2001).
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED, and Count IV of
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, for malicious prosecution, is DISMISSED.

Entered this 23rd day of March, 2016.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2