Gragg v. Skaggs et al
Filing
31
OPINION: The Motions to Dismiss (d/e 20 and d/e 23) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment (d/e 29 and d/e 30) are STRICKEN. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Skaggs and Elugdibaldibo. Plaintiff may refile her state law claims against Skaggs and Elugdibaldibo in state court. This case is CLOSED. (See written Opinion) Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 11/2/2011. (MJ, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 02 November, 2011 04:06:55 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TRACEY M. GRAGG,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
PERRY J. SKAGGS, et al.
Defendant.
No. 11-3175
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Motions to Dismiss filed by
Defendants Sangamon County State’s Attorney (see d/e 20) the
Springfield Police Department (see d/e 23) and Plaintiff’s Motions for
Summary Judgment as to Defendant Perry Skaggs (see d/e 29) and
Jeremiah Elugdibaldibo (see d/e 30). For the reasons that follow,
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED and the Motions for
Summary Judgment are STRICKEN.
Page 1 of 10
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Tracey M. Gragg’s, original Complaint (d/e 1), filed June
22, 2011, purported to allege claims under § 1983 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act. On June 27, 2011, this Court dismissed the
Complaint for failure to state a claim.
On July 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (d/e 5).
The Amended Complaint, very liberally construed, alleges that Perry
Skaggs sexually assaulted Plaintiff and that Jeremiah Elugdibaldibo
helped cover it up. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the
Sangamon County State’s Attorney refused to bring charges and the
Springfield Police Department failed to investigate the allegations. The
Amended Complaint states that “the police department, State’s
Attorney, Jeremiah Elugdibaldibo, and Perry J. Skaggs should be Civil
disciplined on neglect.”
The Sangamon County State’s Attorney and the Springfield Police
Department have filed motions to dismiss.
On October 13, 2011, this Court raised the issue of whether
Page 2 of 10
Plaintiff’s husband Michael Gragg should be substituted as the real party
in interest because of an assertion in one of Plaintiff’s filings with the
Court that Michael Gragg had been appointed her legal guardian. This
Court directed either Plaintiff or Michael Gragg to provide the Court
with documentary evidence of Michael Gragg’s guardianship of Plaintiff
by October 25, 2011. See October 13, 2011 Text Order. Michael Gragg
filed a response on October 21, 2011. See d/e 28. The response did not
provide the required documentary evidence of Michael Gragg’s
guardianship of Plaintiff. However, Michael Gragg has filed Motions for
Summary Judgment with respect to the claims against Skaggs and
Elugdibaldibo.
JURISDICTION
Personal jurisdiction and venue requirements are satisfied because
the relevant acts occurred in this judicial district. See World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980) (personal
jurisdiction exists where a defendant “purposefully avail[ed] [himself or
herself] of the privilege of conducting activities” in the forum state); see
Page 3 of 10
28 U.S.C. §1391(b) (venue in non-diversity cases is proper in a judicial
district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same
State). Because the Amended Complaint, liberally construed, arguably
alleges federal constitutional claims, the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
ANALYSIS
A. The Motions to Dismiss are Granted
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). That statement must be
sufficient to provide the defendant with “fair notice” of the claim and its
basis. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir.2008); Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964,
167 L.Ed.2d 929, 940 (2007). This means that (1) “the complaint must
describe the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant ‘fair notice of
what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” and (2) its
allegations must plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief,
Page 4 of 10
raising that possibility above a “speculative level.” EEOC v. Concentra
Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.2007). “A document
filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127
S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (quotation marks and citations
omitted).
1. Plaintiff’s Claim Against the Springfield Police Department
Plaintiff claims the Springfield Police Department failed to
adequately investigate or charge Skaggs with a crime. Initially, the Court
notes the police department is not a separate entity that can be sued
under § 1983. Norman v. City of Evanston, 176 Fed. Appx. 666, 667
(7th Cir. 2006). The Springfield Police Department is a department of
the City of Springfield and is not separately suable. See Jordan v. City
of Chicago Dept. of Police, 505 F. Supp. 1, 3 (N.D. Ill. 1980). However,
this problem could easily be fixed by substituting the City of Springfield
as a defendant. Therefore, the Court will address the substance of the
Page 5 of 10
claim.
As stated, Plaintiff’s claim against the police department, i.e., the
City of Springfield, is that the police department failed to adequately
investigate or charge Skaggs with a crime. There is no legal duty to do
either. See Willis v. Williams, 2010 WL 4683624, at *1 (C.D. Ill. 2010)
(citing Doe v. Milwaukee County, 903 F.2d 499, (7th Cir. 1990)).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against the City of Springfield is dismissed.
2. Plaintiff’s Claim Against the State’s Attorney
Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges the Sangamon County State’s Attorney violated her rights under
§ 1983 by failing to press charges against Skaggs. A state prosecuting
attorney is absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for those activities
“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d
128 (1976). “A state's attorney's decision whether to pursue a criminal
charge is such activity, and is the quintessential activity protected by the
doctrine of prosecutorial immunity.” Holm v. Village of Coal City, 2007
Page 6 of 10
WL 495284, at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 425;
Anderson v. Simon, 217 F.3d 472, 475 (7th Cir.2000) (prosecutor's
refusal to charge a suspect is an immunized prosecutorial activity)); see
also Walter v. Lyons, 962 F.Supp. 126, 129 (C.D. Ill. 1997) (State’s
Attorney entitled to prosecutorial immunity for decision not to
prosecute). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim against the Sangamon County
State’s Attorney’s Office is dismissed.
B. Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment are Stricken
Michael Gragg cannot file documents on behalf of Plaintiff in this
case because Michael Gragg did not file the documentary evidence of his
guardianship of Plaintiff that the Court requested in its October 13,
2011 text order. Therefore, the Motions for Summary Judgment (d/e 29
and d/e 30) filed by Michael Gragg are stricken.
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
The Court notes that the only claims remaining in this are state
law claims against Skaggs and Elugdibaldibo. Section 1367(a) provides
that, “in any civil action of which the district courts have original
Page 7 of 10
jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over
all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such
original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.” District courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under
subsection (a) if “the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Here, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint purports to allege a cause of
action based § 1983, which gave this Court original jurisdiction over the
case. However, the only potential federal claims in the Amended
Complaint (again, giving the Amended Complaint a very liberal reading)
were against the Sangamon County State’s Attorney’s Office and the
City of Springfield (Springfield Police Department). “‘[T]he general rule
is that, when all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the district
court should relinquish jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims rather
than resolving them on the merits.’” Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher &
Newman, Ltd., 140 F.3d 716, 727 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Wright v.
Page 8 of 10
Associated Ins. Cos., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994). “Cases
involving difficult and unresolved issues of state law may well be
adjudicated more accurately and more expeditiously in a state court.”
Barron v. Lee Enterprises, Inc., 183 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (C.D. Ill. 2002)
(citing Centres, Inc. v. Town of Brookfield, Wis., 148 F.3d 699, 704 (7th
Cir. 1998). Moreover, “respect for the state’s interest in applying its
own law, along with the state court’s greater expertise in applying state
law, are paramount concerns.” Barron, 183 F. Supp. 2d at 1089 (citing
Kennedy, 140 F.3d at 728). Based upon these considerations, this Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining
state law claims against Skaggs and Elugdibaldibo.
THEREFORE, the Motions to Dismiss (d/e 20 and d/e 23) are
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (d/e 29 and d/e
30) are STRICKEN. The Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Skaggs and
Elugdibaldibo. Plaintiff may refile her state law claims against Skaggs
and Elugdibaldibo in state court. This case is CLOSED.
Page 9 of 10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER: November 2, 2011.
FOR THE COURT:
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 10 of 10
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?