James v. Kankakee Police Department et al
Filing
89
Memorandum Opinion entered by Judge Harold A. Baker on 5/1/2013. See written opinion. Copy mailed to Seneca James at M32986, HILL CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Inmate Mail/Parcels, PO Box 1700, Galesburg, IL 61401.(JMW, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 01 May, 2013 02:40:48 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SENECA JAMES,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
TIMOTHY KREISSLER and
MICHAEL SHREFFLER,
11-2161
DEFENDANTS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 29, 2013, this case was called for trial before the court sitting with a
jury. The plaintiff, Seneca James, appeared pro se. The defendant, Timothy Kreissler,
appeared personally, accompanied by his counsel, Michael Bersani, Esq.1 The
plaintiff’s claim was that the defendant, Sergeant Timothy Kreissler, of the Kankakee
Police Department, struck James in the face and thereby infringed James’ Fourteenth
Amendment right as a pretrial detainee to due process.
After opening statements were made, the plaintiff proceeded with his case in
chief. The plaintiff’s exhibits, the hospital and jail records, were received as the
records of regularly conducted activities. James called as witnesses the two security
guards at the hospital to which the Kankakee police officers took him after his arrest.
He called the arresting officer, Michael Shreffler. He called the emergency room RN
who cared for him and cleaned up his wounds and gave him a tetanus shot. He
presented the hospital records of the emergency room physician and nurse who
examined him and treated him. He called the defendant, Kreissler, to testify. He
1
The court, on motion, entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Michael
Shreffler, on March 1, 2013. [Dkt 67].
1
presented the deposition testimony of the emergency room doctor who treated him.
Finally, he testified himself.
In sum, the weight of the evidence was overwhelming that James had no claim
against Kreissler. The plaintiff’s evidence didn’t come close to making out a prima
facie case. There was no genuine dispute about what transpired, except for James’
claim that Kreissler struck him.
James was at a “get together” of friends, drinking, and partying through the
afternoon and into the late hours of the night. James became involved in a dispute. He
was put out of the party and the door locked. He smoked a cigarette. He was angry.
He tried to be let back in. That didn’t happen. So James broke a window with his arm,
sustaining cuts. The people at the party came out to confront James. His “girlfriend’s
new boyfriend” struck James in the face in the area of his left eye. His “girlfriend”
scratched James’ face on the left side. The police were called. James left on foot and
was apprehended by the police in an alley about a block away. He was arrested,
handcuffed, searched for weapons and taken by the police to the hospital to have his
wounds examined.
The witnesses agreed that James did not offer any resistance when he was
arrested and submitted to the arrest. It was a different story when James got to the
hospital. The hospital security guards, who were alerted to the arrival of the police with
a person in custody, testified that James was loud and abusive to everyone when he was
led into the ER by the police, struggling and yelling obscenities at the police and the
hospital staff. He was placed in a sitting position in a bed in an ER examining station.
There is some vagueness as to whether his hands and feet were secured to the bed. He
says they were and it seems quite likely that with his abusiveness and combative nature
that was probably so. At any rate he was examined and his wounds treated. In the
history he gave the doctor and the nurse, James said “his girlfriend’s new boyfriend”
had punched him in the face inflicting the condition around his left eye.
At about this time the defendant Kreissler showed up in the ER to take
photographs of James’ injuries. James was not cooperative and Kreissler had difficulty
getting the pictures that were received in evidence. While he was trying to get the
photographs and was about two feet from James, James spit in Kreissler’s face. James
2
testified that Kreissler then struck James in the face. All the other persons standing
there watching, the security staff, Shreffler, the nurse, the physician, testified that was
not true. Kreissler got an antiseptic wipe from the nurse, wiped his face off and left the
ER. Kreissler testified that he never touched James at any time. He was present as shift
supervisor when James was apprehended but did not participate in the arrest or in taking
James to the hospital or to the Kankakee County Jail. Kreissler testified that, after he
took the photographs and left the hospital, he returned to the police station, went to the
locker room and washed his face.
When the plaintiff rested his case, the defendant moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50
for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted the motion and concluded that “a
reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to find in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant. There was no genuine credibility question left.
Granting that the security guards and the police officers might slant their testimony in
favor of the defendant, the nurse and the treating physician had no such inclination. To
the contrary, as the testimony showed, they were professionally and morally obligated
to record and to report any patient abuse. They testified unequivocally that they saw no
abuse.
In addition, and while not a major concern, it was the end of the day and
requiring the jury to return for another day, to arrive at what was obviously a foregone
conclusion, would not have been an efficient and fiscally responsible use of the court’s
resources or of the jurors’ time.
Enter this 1st day of May 2013.
/s/Harold A. Baker
________________________
Harold A. Baker
United Sates District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?