Fluker v. County of Kankakee et al

Filing 44

ORDER entered by Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 7/25/2012. It is ordered that The Report and Recommendation 41 is accepted by this court. Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 29 is DENIED. Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint 31 is GRANTED. See written order. (DE, ilcd)

E-FILED

Wednesday, 25 July, 2012 04:09:53 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
ROY FLUKER and DEBRA FLUKER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE and
KANKAKEE COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-CV-2254

ORDER

On June 1, 2012, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and
Recommendation (#41) in this case. Judge Bernthal recommended that Defendant Kankakee
County’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (#29) be
denied because the Plaintiffs brought suit directly against Kankakee County and, therefore,
Kankakee County is a necessary and an indispensable party in this litigation. Judge Bernthal
also recommended that Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint (#31) be granted because the Seventh Circuit has not endorsed the
validity of a spouse’s loss of consortium claim brought under section 1983.
On June 18, 2012, Defendant filed an Objection (#43) to Judge Bernthal’s
recommendation that its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (#29) be
denied. Defendant argued that this court should reject this recommendation because
Kankakee County and the Kankakee County Sherriff’s Office are legally distinct entities
under Illinois law and Plaintiffs’ allegations that jail employees were “agents and employees”

of Kankakee County do not satisfy the “plausibility” standard outlined in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009). On June 18, 2012, Plaintiffs also filed an Objection (#42) to
Judge Bernthal’s recommendation that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count IV of
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (#31) be granted.1 This court has carefully reviewed
Judge Bernthal’s Report and Recommendation (#41) and considered each of the arguments
contained in Plaintiffs’ and Defendant’s Objections (#43, #42). Following this careful and
thorough review, this court agrees with and accepts Judge Bernthal’s Report and
Recommendation (#41) in its entirety.
This court will briefly address Defendant’s Objection (#43), which relies upon Moy v.
County of Cook, 159 Ill.2d 519 (1994) and Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir.
1989). In Moy, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that a county cannot be vicariously
liable or liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for injuries caused by correctional
officers. Moy, 159 Ill. 2d at 529-30. This court agrees with Judge Bernthal that Defendant’s
reliance on Moy is misplaced. The Plaintiffs are not alleging that Kankakee County is
vicariously liable for the actions of the Sheriff’s Office. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that the
Kankakee County is liable because the officers who transported Mr. Fluker may have been
agents or employees of Kankakee County. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that Kankakee
County employees directly participated in the actions that lead to Plaintiffs’ injuries—
therefore, their claims against Kankakee County are not based on the doctrine of respondeat
superior and are thus not barred by Moy.

1

Plaintiffs’ Objection (#42) did not contain any argument, but simply was filed to
preserve their ability to challenge the dismissal of Count IV on appeal.

In Thompson, the Seventh Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Cook County
should be liable for “failure to train” its employees. Thompson, 882 F.2d at 1187. The
Seventh Circuit noted that the Cook County Jail and the Cook County Department of
Corrections are under the supervision of the Sheriff of Cook County. Id. In finding that the
Sheriff is an independently elected officer who does not answer to the Cook County Board of
Commissioners, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the county cannot be held liable for
policies and practices and actions that are unrelated to that entity. Id. Accordingly,
Kankakee County argued that the it cannot be held liable for actions of the sheriffs because in
Illinois, sheriffs are considered to be the wardens of county jails and are responsible for
county operations, but are not considered county employees. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
should not be granted unless Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they are plausibly
entitled to relief under the facts they have alleged. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 546 (2007). Under Twombly, this court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in
Plaintiffs’ favor and assume that Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are true. See id. at 555. At
this stage, Plaintiffs have stated a theory under which Kankakee County is a proper party in
this case. Therefore, Judge Bernthal was correct to find that the Defendant Kankakee County
is a proper party in this case and that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim against
Kankakee County.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report & Recommendation (#41) is accepted by this court.
(2) Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint (#29) is DENIED.

(3) Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint (#31) is GRANTED.
ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012
s/ Michael P. McCuskey
MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE